Moore v. Regents of the University of California
Citation: 51 Cal. 3d 120 (Cal. 1990)
Facts
John Moore was treated at UCLA for hairy cell leukemia. His physician, Dr. Golde, recognized that Moore’s cells had unique properties and, without Moore’s knowledge or consent, used cells extracted during treatment to develop a cell line (“Mo cell line”) that was patented and licensed for $3 million. Moore sued for conversion (among other claims), arguing his cells were his property and had been taken without his consent.
Issue
Does a patient have a property right in his excised cells sufficient to support a claim of conversion when a physician uses those cells without consent for commercial research?
Holding
The California Supreme Court held that Moore had no property right in his excised cells, and the conversion claim failed. However, the Court held that Dr. Golde breached his fiduciary duty and the duty of informed consent by failing to disclose his research and economic interests prior to treatment.
Rule
Excised human cells do not retain a property interest sufficient to support a conversion claim in the hands of the person from whom they were taken. Once cells are removed, California law and policy (including statutes governing abandoned biological material) prevent the patient from asserting continued ownership.
Significance
Moore is the foundational case for property rights in the human body. It raises deep questions about commodification of the body, the limits of conversion doctrine, incentives for biomedical research, and informed consent. The concurrences and dissent (Arabian, Mosk) present starkly different views on whether persons should have property rights in their biological material and the consequences of each position.