## Facts

- John Moore received treatment for hairy-cell leukemia at UCLA Medical Center beginning in 1976 under Dr. David W. Golde.
- During treatment, Moore’s blood, bone marrow, and other bodily substances were removed over time as part of medical procedures.
- Golde and others used Moore’s excised cells to develop a commercially valuable cell line and related products.
- A patent was obtained for the cell line, listing Golde and a researcher as inventors and naming the Regents as assignee.
- Moore alleged his physician did not disclose preexisting research and financial interests in Moore’s cells before obtaining consent for the procedures that produced the excised materials.
- Moore sued multiple defendants, asserting claims including conversion (seeking a share of profits), breach of fiduciary duty, and lack of informed consent.
- The trial court sustained demurrers to the operative complaint; the intermediate appellate court reversed; the state supreme court reviewed.

## Issues

1. Whether a patient retains a property interest in excised cells sufficient to state a conversion claim based on defendants’ research and commercialization.
2. Whether a treating physician’s undisclosed research and financial interests can support claims for breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent.

## Decision

- The court held Moore did not state a cause of action for conversion based on excised cells or the cell line derived from them.
- The court held Moore did state causes of action against his physician based on breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent for failing to disclose relevant research and economic interests.
- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate court, permitting the disclosure-based claims to proceed while rejecting conversion.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion requires a legally recognized ownership or possessory interest; excised human cells removed in the course of medical treatment are not treated as the patient’s continuing personal property for purposes of conversion.
- Statutory rules governing the handling and disposition of human biological materials may limit any continuing patient control over excised tissue and weigh against recognizing a conversion remedy.
- A patented cell line and related inventions are legally distinct from the patient’s original cells and may not be claimed by the patient as the “subject matter” of the patent.
- Physicians owe fiduciary duties of loyalty and disclosure to patients; undisclosed personal interests that may affect medical judgment can constitute a breach.
- Informed consent requires disclosure of material information relevant to the patient’s decision, including a physician’s preexisting research and financial interests tied to the proposed procedures.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a property-based conversion theory for excised cells used in biomedical research, while allowing the patient to pursue liability against the treating physician for nondisclosure of research and financial interests under fiduciary-duty and informed-consent doctrines.


Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 51 Cal. 3d 120, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990)