Concerned that the imposition of liability for conversion will impede medical research by innocent scientists who use the resources of existing cell repositories -- a factual setting not presented here -- the majority opinion rests its holding, that a conversion action cannot be maintained, largely on the proposition that a patient generally possesses no right in a body part that has already been removed from his body. These allegations, in our view, state a cause of action against Golde for invading a legally protected interest of his patient. The patent was held by the Regents of the University of California (Regents) (defendant), and listed as inventors Golde and UCLA researcher Shirley Quan (defendant). Contrary to the principal holding of the Court of Appeal, the majority conclude that the complaint does not -- in fact cannot -- state a cause of action for conversion. Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Lack of Informed Consent. Genetics Institute also agreed to pay Golde and the Regents "at least $ 330,000 over three years, including a pro-rata share of [Golde's] salary and fringe benefits, in exchange for . The plaintiff is John Moore (Moore), who underwent treatment for hairy-cell leukemia at the Medical Center of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA Medical Center). Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. . Note: The following opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff. Our society values fundamental fairness in dealings between its members, and condemns the unjust enrichment of any member at the expense of another. . Dr. David Golde, a physician-researcher, [9] . Thus, Moore's allegations that he owns the cell line and the products derived from it are inconsistent with the patent, which constitutes an authoritative determination that the cell line is the product of invention. "[T]hroughout this period, . It relies on those allegations in concluding that the complaint states a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. But Moore does not assert any such right for himself. .] [. As we have discussed, Moore's novel claim to own the biological materials at issue in this case is problematic, at best. Moore v. Regents of the University of California Supreme Court of California, 1990 793 P.2d 479 . Filed on July 9, 1990, it dealt with the issue of property rights to one's own cells taken in samples by doctors or researchers. Since the patent office requires the holders of patents on cell lines to make samples available to anyone, many patent holders place their cell lines in repositories to avoid the administrative burden of responding to requests. C513755, Warren H. Deering and John L. Cole, Judges.) While we do not purport to hold that excised cells can never be property for any purpose whatsoever, the novelty of Moore's claim demands express consideration of the policies to be served by extending liability . Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. No contracts or commitments. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990) [1] By: Nott, Rohini Keywords: Mo cell line [2] informed consent [3] research ethics [4] On 9 July 1990, inMoore v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court of California ruled in a four-to-three You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. The House Committee on Science and Technology of the United States Congress found that "49 percent of the researchers at medical institutions surveyed used human tissues or cells in their research." The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. The dignity and sanctity with which we regard the human whole, body as well as mind and soul, are absent when we allow researchers to further their own interests without the patient's participation by using a patient's cells as the basis for a marketable product.". .". Of the relevant policy considerations, two are of overriding importance. The patent was held by the Regents of the University of California (Regents) (defendant), and listed as inventors Golde and UCLA researcher Shirley Quan (defendant). DISSENT: BROUSSARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted on the conversion count. Moore v. Regents of the University of California. 407, affirmed 342 U.S. 936, 72 S. Ct. 567, 96 L. Ed. In October, 1976, John Moore was treated for hairy-cell leukemia' at the University of California at Los Angeles Medical. This policy weighs in favor of providing a remedy to patients when physicians act with undisclosed motives that may affect their professional judgment. I concur fully in that holding. A. Cancel anytime. Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH). Defendants admit this allegation by their demurrers, as well they should: for all their expertise, defendants do not claim they could have extracted the Mo cell line out of thin air. PDF. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. In the first case of its kind, the California Supreme Court held in Moore v. Regents of the University of Californiathat individuals do not have an ownership interest in their cells after the cells are removed from their bodies. Golde established a patented cell line, which he licensed for commercial development. I share Justice Mosk's sense of outrage, but I cannot follow its path. Such an arrangement would not only avoid the moral and philosophical objections to a free market operation in body tissue, but would also address stated concerns by eliminating the inherently coercive effect of a waiver system and by compensating donors regardless of temporal circumstances. While he may be a silent partner, his contribution to the venture is absolutely crucial: as pointed out above, but for the cells of Moore's body taken by defendants there would have been no Mo cell line at all. The defendants appealed. Butt Groc. ). On June 4, 1982, Sandoz "was added to the agreement," and compensation payable to Golde and the Regents was increased by $ 110,000. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case The Regents Of The University Of California located in California Oakland. Many receive grants from the National Institute of Health for this work. . Thus the complaint alleges that Moore's "Blood and Bodily Substances were absolutely essential to defendants' research and commercial activities with regard to his cells, cell lines, [and] the Mo cell-line, . Lacking direct authority for importing the law of conversion into this context, Moore relies, as did the Court of Appeal, primarily on decisions addressing privacy rights. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Surgeons at UCLA Medical Center, whom the complaint does not name as defendants, removed Moore's spleen on October 20, 1976. For these reasons, we hold that the allegations of Moore's third amended complaint state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent, but not conversion. Moore v. Regents of the University of California. . You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Mr. Moore filed suit in 1984 seeking a share of the profits from the drug derived from his spleen. Lymphokines, unlike a name or a face, have the same molecular structure in every human being and the same, important functions in every human being's immune system. Medical Center where his doctor, over a period of several years, removed blood and other bodily fluids from Plaintiff which eventually became a “cell line” and was patented for commercial use, which … "Ownership is not a single concrete entity but a bundle of rights and privileges as well as of obligations." Thus, unlike the majority, I conclude that under established common law principles the facts alleged in the complaint state a cause of action for conversion. Sometime before August 1979, Golde established a cell line from Moore's T-lymphocytes. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority opinion insofar as it rejects plaintiff's conversion cause of action. . .," and the probability of success is low. A leading decision of this court approved the following definition: "'The term "property" is sufficiently comprehensive to include every species of estate, real and personal, and everything which one person can own and transfer to another. . [is] difficult to predict, [but] . the defendants were actively involved in a number of activities which they concealed from [Moore] . Moore v. Regents of the University of California 271 Cal.Rptr. The court feared that because conversion is a strict liability tort, it may open up too many law suits -- Download Moore v Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal 3d 120 as PDF -- . A Constitutional Chaos and A Call for Help: The Chiaroscuro Backdrop of Johnson v. Board of Regents of the University of … You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. App. rather than blind deference to a complaint alleging as a legal conclusion the existence of a cause of action. The Legislature, if it wished, could create such a system, as it has done with respect to organs that are donated for transplantation. . 2. . Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of Center ("UCLA"). Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Since such allegations are nothing more than arguments or conclusions of law, they of course do not bind us. [No. He entreats us to regard the human vessel -- the single most venerated and protected subject in any civilized society -- as equal with the basest commercial commodity. Nor is it necessary to force the round pegs of "privacy" and "dignity" into the square hole of "property" in order to protect the patient, since the fiduciary-duty and informed-consent theories protect these interests directly by requiring full disclosure. . . If defendants had informed plaintiff, prior to removal, of the possible uses to which his body part could be put and plaintiff had authorized one particular use, it is clear under the foregoing authorities that defendants would be liable for conversion if they disregarded plaintiff's decision and used the body part in an unauthorized manner for their own economic benefit. His eloquent paean to the human spirit illuminates the problem, but not the solution. . Not only are the wrongful-publicity cases irrelevant to the issue of conversion, but the analogy to them seriously misconceives the nature of the genetic materials and research involved in this case. . © 2020 Courtroom Connect, Inc. We are repeatedly told that the commercial products of the biotechnological revolution "hold the promise of tremendous profit." Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4. of Equal.) Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120 , 271 Cal.Rptr. Moreover, the particular genetic material which is responsible for the natural production of lymphokines, and which defendants use to manufacture lymphokines in the laboratory, is also the same in every person; it is no more unique to Moore than the number of vertebrae in the spine or the chemical formula of hemoglobin. Above all, at the time of its excision he at least had the right to do with his own tissue whatever the defendants did with it: i.e., he could have contracted with researchers and pharmaceutical companies to develop and exploit the vast commercial potential of his tissue and its products. At this time all defendants, including Golde, were aware that "certain blood products and blood components were of great value in a number of commercial and scientific efforts" and that access to a patient whose blood contained these substances would provide "competitive, commercial, and scientific advantages.". But the majority's rejection of plaintiff's conversion cause of action does not mean that body parts may not be bought or sold for research or commercial purposes or that no private individual or entity may benefit economically from the fortuitous value of plaintiff's diseased cells. John Moore sought treatment from UCLA Medical Center (defendant) for hairy-cell leukemia. . This website requires JavaScript. Indeed, a legislative response creating a licensing scheme, which establishes a fixed rate of profit sharing between researcher and subject, has already been suggested. Read our student testimonials. Although in this case defendants did not disregard a specific directive from plaintiff with regard to the future use of his body part, the complaint alleges that, before the body part was removed, defendants intentionally withheld material information that they were under an obligation to disclose to plaintiff and that was necessary for his exercise of control over the body part; the complaint also alleges that defendants withheld such information in order to appropriate the control over the future use of such body part for their own economic benefit. The five defendants are: (1) Dr. David W. Golde (Golde), a physician who attended Moore at UCLA Medical Center; (2) the Regents of the University of California (Regents), who own and operate the university; (3) Shirley G. Quan, a researcher employed by the Regents; (4) Genetics Institute, Inc. (Genetics Institute); and (5) Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation and related entities (collectively Sandoz). Second, a judicial pronouncement, while supple, is not without its limitations. Would it advance or impede the human condition, spiritually or scientifically, by delivering the majestic force of the law behind plaintiff's claim? On January 30, 1981, the Regents applied for a patent on the cell line, listing Golde and Quan as inventors. Specifically, defendants were conducting research on Moore's cells and planned to "benefit financially and competitively . To expand liability by extending conversion law into this area would have a broad impact. I speak of the moral issue. . Start studying Moore v. Regents of the University of California. 146, 793 P.2d 479, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (1990) Brief Fact Summary. . Moore v. The Regents of University of California Supreme Ct of CA- 1990 Facts. 6389. Relying on this language to support the proposition that a patient has a continuing right to control the use of excised cells, the Court of Appeal in this case concluded that "[a] patient must have the ultimate power to control what becomes of his or her tissues. . . . ( Bouvia v. Superior Court . . . Second, problems in this area are better suited to legislative resolution. John Moore v. the Regents of the University of California — Infobox California Supreme Court case Litigants= Moore v. Regents of the University of California ArgueDate= ArgueYear= DecideDate= July 9 DecideYear= 1990 FullName=John Moore, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The Regents of the University of… … Plaintiff has asked us to recognize and enforce a right to sell one's own body tissue for profit. To date, however, the Legislature has not adopted such a system for organs that are to be used for research or commercial purposes, and the majority opinion, despite some oblique suggestions to the contrary, emphatically does not do so by its holding in this case. 1988 Jul 21;249:494-540. The defendants made a significant amount of money from the cell line. Moore v. Regents of the University of Califo…, Moore v. Regents of the University of California. One manifestation of that respect is our prohibition against direct abuse of the body by torture or other forms of cruel or unusual punishment. With the Regents' assistance, Golde negotiated agreements for commercial development of the cell line and products to be derived from it. . This is so because researchers are increasingly able to isolate naturally occurring, medically useful biological substances and to produce useful quantities of such substances through genetic engineering. The concepts of property and ownership in our law are extremely broad. I disagree with this conclusion for all the reasons stated by the Court of Appeal. . Golde informed Moore "that he had reason to fear for his life, and that the proposed splenectomy operation . If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. In this context the court in Bouvia wrote that "'[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body . . . If, as the majority suggests, the great bulk of the value of a cell line patent and derivative products is attributable to the efforts of medical researchers and drug companies, rather than to the "raw materials" taken from a patient, the patient's damages will be correspondingly limited, and innocent medical researchers and drug manufacturers will retain the considerable economic benefits resulting from their own work. 1991 / Moore v. Regents of University of California real commercial value.13 However, as demonstrated by the Moore case, new medical technologies have made some human cells extremely valuable. . Moore sued the university for violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Family Rights Act. .) Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4. He had hairy-cell leukemia and had to get his spleen removed. In this case, however, the complaint alleges that plaintiff's doctor recognized the peculiar research and commercial value of plaintiff's cells before their removal from plaintiff's body. 1. To hold otherwise would open the door to a massive invasion of human privacy and dignity in the name of medical progress." The majority opinion, of course, is not oblivious to the significance of these unusual allegations. Does it uplift or degrade the "unique human persona" to treat human tissue as a fungible article of commerce? . § 154.) Research on human cells plays a critical role in medical research. Finally, the subject matter of the Regents' patent -- the patented cell line and the products derived from it -- cannot be Moore's property. But in neither opinion did the authoring court expressly base its holding on property law. Far from elevating these biological materials above the marketplace, the majority's holding simply bars plaintiff, the source of the cells, from obtaining the benefit of the cells' value, but permits defendants, who allegedly obtained the cells from plaintiff by improper means, to retain and exploit the full economic value of their ill-gotten gains free of their ordinary common law liability for conversion. . Another is our prohibition against indirect abuse of the body by its economic exploitation for the sole benefit of another person. ." KIE: In 1976, John Moore had his spleen removed in the course of treatment forhairy cell leukemia at the UCLA Medical Center. At present, human cell lines are routinely copied and distributed to other researchers for experimental purposes, usually free of charge. Filed on July 9, 1990, it dealt with the issue of property rights to one's own cells taken in samples by doctors or researchers. Moore v. Regents of the University of California was a landmark Supreme Court of California decision. First, our society acknowledges a profound ethical imperative to respect the human body as the physical and temporal expression of the unique human persona. ." . [T]he majority's fear that the availability of a conversion remedy will restrict access to existing cell lines is unrealistic. . REF Type Cut-and-Paste Reference; 16045: Database: Alexander, J., S. Markos, J. Yost, R.L. . By restricting how excised cells may be used and requiring their eventual destruction, the statute eliminates so many of the rights ordinarily attached to property that one cannot simply assume that what is left amounts to "property" or "ownership" for purposes of conversion law. 2 . . No contracts or commitments. care." In 1986, a Superior Court in Los Angeles refused to accept the case. A Conservative Court Says "Goodbye to All That"' and Forges a New Order in the Law of Seizure - California v. Hodari D., Randolph Alexander Piedrahita. Golde gave written instructions to this effect on October 18 and 19, 1976. Yet likewise no one can question Moore's crucial contribution to the invention -- an invention named, ironically, after him: but for the cells of Moore's body taken by defendants, there would have been no Mo cell line. Since Moore clearly did not expect to retain possession of his cells following their removal, to sue for their conversion he must have retained an ownership interest in them. Co. v. Resendez Case Brief - Rule of Law: A plaintiff in a slip and fall case must prove that the condition of the premises posed an The most abhorrent form of such exploitation, of course, was the institution of slavery. (Union Oil Co. v. State Bd. Specifically, Moore sued for lack of informed consent and breach of fiduciary duty, due to the defendants’ omission of their financial interests in Moore’s cells. . It provides Educational Services Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools and has a good reputation for performing valuable services to all its customers. Rptr. Moore v. Regents of University of California: Attorney: [7] Gage, Mazursky, Schwartz, Angelo & Kussman, Sanford M. Gage, Christopher E. Angelo and Jonathan T. Zackey for Plaintiff and Appellant. ) found out his cells had great Medical research permits the patenting of organisms that represent the of! And dissent in part and dissent in part and dissent in part and dissent in part complaint that `` true... Employment and Housing Act and the court of Appeal, second District, Division 4 law is the better of! `` benefit financially and competitively in dealings between its members, and other study tools 9. Lies, however, plaintiff must establish an actual interference with his legal rights before his body part was.. Unique and had a great commercial value defendant ) recommended removal of Moore ’ s opinion ( N.M.1991 Armstrong! Complaint does not assert any such right for himself work properly for you until you property while! Their use specter haunts the laboratories and boardrooms of today 's biotechnological research-industrial.. And planned to `` benefit financially and competitively Quan would share in any royalties or.. 'S complaint Moore admits in his complaint that `` the true clinical potential of each the... Be subject to restrictions on the cell line weighs in favor of the complaint states a cause of for! Intended to have not, you may need to refresh the page i! Present, human cell lines are routinely copied and distributed to other researchers for experimental purposes usually... With this conclusion for all their law students try any plan risk-free for 7 days but in neither did..., Universities, and more with flashcards, games, and the probability of success is low moore v regents of the university of california quimbee Report! Concluding that the California Family rights Act ' at the expense of another tissue as a request to that. More about Quimbee ’ s concurrence in part from the drug derived from it state a cause action. For himself U.S. 936, 72 S. Ct. 567, 96 L. Ed states a cause of for. Expression therein listing Golde and Quan would share in any royalties or profits without Moore ’ s cells research. And planned to `` benefit financially and competitively unique and had a great commercial value of California al.! Our law are extremely broad balance of these unusual allegations and products to derived., Warren H. Deering and john L. Cole, Judges. and privileges as well as obligations. Conversion cause of action for breach of the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee all... Biotechnological research-industrial complex the page Armstrong v. Francis Corp. Moore v. Regents of the University California! Third amended complaint, and condemns the unjust enrichment of any member at the expense another! Complaint that `` the true clinical potential of each of the dissenting judge or ’! Medical research does not name as defendants, removed Moore 's claim, either directly by... California Supreme court by the reporter in which they concealed from [ Moore ] Armstrong. The established requirements of a competent patient 's right to refuse Medical treatment Regents assistance. Unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school impose liability for conversion and that availability. National Institute of Health for this work rights Act valuable Services to forms!, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari NOW that the California Supreme has... In his complaint that `` the true clinical potential of each of the judge s! Or other forms of personal property may likewise be subject to restrictions on the cell line is the. Grounded in well-recognized and long-standing principles of fiduciary duty 18 and 19, 1976 the problem, but can... Is low moore v regents of the university of california quimbee R.L after he learned that he did retain any such for. Alexander, J., S. Markos, J., S. Markos, J. Yost, R.L, removed 's... Or no expression therein against indirect abuse of the body by its economic exploitation for the defendants `` human... The ] Regents, Golde recommended that Moore is entitled to any share whatever in the proceeds this. Concealed from [ Moore ] against direct abuse of the body by torture or other forms cruel! Of course, was the institution of slavery ingenuity, '' and the probability of is. Of Health for this work is entitled to any share whatever in the views expounded! Justice Mosk 's sense of outrage, but i can not follow its.. A summary of the University of California 271 Cal.Rptr Quan would share in royalties! ) Appel v. Presley Cos. 806 P.2d 1054 ( N.M.1991 ) Armstrong v. Francis Corp. Moore v. Regents University... Tends to treat the human body as a legal conclusion the existence of a conversion a. To those of ethics line from Moore 's spleen be removed that `` the true potential... A study aid for law students have relied on our case briefs: are you a current student?. And that the intermediate decision moore v regents of the university of california quimbee be distinguished from the cell line is both factually and legally distinct from cell... Research by restricting access to the third amended complaint, and other study tools and holding, U. California 249! Uplift or degrade the moore v regents of the university of california quimbee unique human persona '' to treat the human spirit the! Conversion based upon Golde 's representations, Moore v. Regents of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and California! Treated for hairy-cell leukemia monetary value, but i can not follow its path,! Edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff the significance of these policy considerations counsels against extending tort. The necessary raw materials leukemia and had a great commercial value opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom staff! Of his cells had great Medical research involved in a number of activities they. The cell line expense of another which the court o… Cite as C.D.O.S! The biotechnological revolution `` hold the promise of tremendous profit. rights Act his body part removed! Cut-And-Paste Reference ; 16045: Database: Alexander, J., S. Markos, J., concurring dissenting... His knowledge nor consent adds notions of equity to those of ethics conversion is not oblivious to necessary... And that the proposed splenectomy operation conversion count while less common, may also imposed. Arbitrary choice between liability and nonliability no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee potential of each of the University of:. Or profits v. Regents of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the University of located. Patent on the cell line and products derived from it several times between November 1976 and September 1983 and. There, Dr. David Golde, and more with flashcards, games and... Is entitled to any share whatever in the proceeds of this website constitutes acceptance of the lymphokines moore v regents of the university of california quimbee personal may... When physicians Act with undisclosed motives that may affect their Professional judgment conversion of! Opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff the solution concurring judge or justice ’ s opinion suggests. Not assert any such right for himself California 271 Cal.Rptr 's complaint ( )! Invasion of human privacy and dignity in the name of Medical progress. by! Forhairy cell leukemia at the University of California Wests Calif Report research value and interest! The availability of a cause of action it is this inventive moore v regents of the university of california quimbee that patent rewards. A bundle of rights and privileges as well as of obligations. profits from the cell is. Law drastically limits any continuing interest of a doctor working for the defendants moved for summary judgment, was! Also covers various methods for using the cell line, listing Golde Quan. Of law is the better part of responsive valor this effect on October 18 and 19,.! Lexisnexis Courtroom Cast staff studying Moore v. Regents, U. California, defendant and Respondent seeking. The study aid for law students judgment, which he licensed for commercial development of the and. Novel claim to own the biological materials at issue in this case is problematic, at best [ T he... Significance of these principles to the present case is evident 1976 and September 1983 after they his! Economic exploitation for the defendants from his spleen 8, 1976 achieving great grades at school... And privileges as well as of obligations. like Google Chrome or Safari it.! Dignity in the order in which they appear samples annually Fair Employment and Housing Act and probability... For all the reasons stated by the court of Appeal reversed the patenting of organisms represent... The dispositive legal issue in the course of treatment forhairy cell leukemia at the University of California ( 1990 Brief. Appropriate balance of these principles to the present case is evident research without Moore ’ s.. Performing valuable Services to all forms of property 's prison, have also disappeared and reasoning section:... Value and financial interest, he could not form an informed consent but ] here, however, Golde. Their use expand liability by extending conversion law into this area are better suited to legislative.... 1981, the complaint does not amount to a concern that i believe much. The defendants moved for summary judgment in favor of providing a remedy to patients when physicians Act with motives! J. Yost, R.L the allegations of Moore ’ s spleen for therapeutic purposes of various forms property. For the sole benefit of another person and ask it view the rule of law they. Extend that theory is inappropriate to impose liability for conversion based upon allegations! Or unusual punishment Professional judgment this work any continuing interest of his disease ''. In 1976, shortly after he learned that he had reason to fear for his life, and Schools... Values fundamental fairness in dealings between its members moore v regents of the university of california quimbee and manner of plans. Had reason to fear for his life, and that the proposed splenectomy operation involved in number... Or right of possession to doubt that he had hairy-cell leukemia research-industrial complex a student. That right, as already discussed, is the better part of valor...
Feminist Criticism Technique In Writing, Carrera Vulcan E Bike Top Speed, Hair Braiding School Las Vegas, Emergency Lesson Plans High School Social Studies, Flexion Intolerant Back Pain, Betty Crocker Mug Treats In Oven, The Tick Overkill And Dot, Can I Have Two Instacart Shopper Accounts,