## Facts

- John Moore, diagnosed with hairy-cell leukemia, received treatment at UCLA Medical Center beginning in the mid-1970s.
- Moore’s treating physician, Dr. David Golde, recommended removal of Moore’s spleen as medically necessary; Moore consented to the splenectomy.
- Moore alleged that, before the surgery, Golde and researcher Shirley Quan intended to obtain Moore’s excised spleen tissue for non-therapeutic research and did not disclose that plan or seek permission.
- After the spleen removal, Moore returned to UCLA repeatedly over several years, during which Golde obtained additional biological materials (including blood, serum, skin, bone marrow, and sperm), allegedly representing that the procedures were required for Moore’s health.
- Golde and Quan developed a cell line from Moore’s cells; the Regents applied for and later obtained a patent, with Golde and Quan named as inventors and the Regents as assignee.
- Moore alleged that defendants entered commercial arrangements related to the cell line and derived products, without informing him or compensating him.
- Moore sued the Regents, Golde, Quan, and corporate entities involved in commercialization, asserting conversion and disclosure-based claims (including breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent).
- The trial court sustained demurrers to the third amended complaint; Moore appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a patient retains a sufficient property interest in excised cells and tissues to state a claim for conversion when defendants use the materials without the patient’s knowledge or consent to develop commercially valuable products.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged disclosure-based claims against the treating physician arising from undisclosed research and economic interests connected to the patient’s medical procedures.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment sustaining demurrers in substantial part.
- The court held Moore adequately stated a cause of action for conversion based on alleged ownership or possessory interests in excised tissues and defendants’ unauthorized dominion and control for commercial purposes.
- The court held Moore also sufficiently pleaded claims against his physician premised on nondisclosure, including breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent.
- The case was permitted to proceed beyond the pleading stage on the revived claims.

## Legal Principles

- On demurrer, the court assumes the truth of properly pleaded factual allegations and decides only whether the complaint states a legally cognizable claim.
- Excised human tissues may be treated as tangible personal property for purposes of pleading a conversion claim, permitting application of traditional conversion elements to allegedly unauthorized use.
- Conversion may be pleaded by alleging (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of personal property, (2) the defendant’s wrongful exercise of dominion over it, and (3) resulting damages.
- A physician’s fiduciary obligations and informed-consent duties include disclosure of personal research or economic interests that may bear on medical judgment and that a reasonable patient would consider material to undergoing procedures.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that Moore’s allegations were sufficient to proceed on a conversion theory for unauthorized commercial use of his excised tissues and on disclosure-based claims arising from his physician’s alleged failure to reveal research and financial interests tied to the medical procedures.


Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 215 Cal. App. 3d 709 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)