Moore v. Regents of the
University of California case brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
793 P.2d 479
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appeal from decision of
the Court of Appeals of California, which found plaintiff stated a
cause of action for conversion when defendants used plaintiff's cells
for medical research without plaintiff's permission.
FACTS: Review was sought of appellate court's decision, which found plaintiff stated cause of action for conversion when defendants used plaintiff's cells in medical research without permission. The court found plaintiff stated cause of action for breach of physician's disclosure obligations. Physicians seeking patient consent for medical procedures must disclose personal interests unrelated to the patient's health that may affect medical judgment. Defendant did not properly disclose personal interests in plaintiff's cells before he operated, thus plaintiff stated cause of action for breach of disclosure obligations.
HOLDING:
The court reversed and held use of plaintiff's cells without permission did not state conversion cause of action.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff did not retain ownership interest in cells after they left his body and thus could not assert conversion claim. Conversion should not lie because it would discourage medical research of cells and patients are adequately protected from abuse because of informed consent laws.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the appellate court's decision, finding plaintiff did not state conversion claim when defendants used plaintiff's cells in medical research without permission because plaintiff had no ownership interest in cells after they left his body; plaintiff did state claim for breach of physician's disclosure obligations.
FACTS: Review was sought of appellate court's decision, which found plaintiff stated cause of action for conversion when defendants used plaintiff's cells in medical research without permission. The court found plaintiff stated cause of action for breach of physician's disclosure obligations. Physicians seeking patient consent for medical procedures must disclose personal interests unrelated to the patient's health that may affect medical judgment. Defendant did not properly disclose personal interests in plaintiff's cells before he operated, thus plaintiff stated cause of action for breach of disclosure obligations.
HOLDING:
The court reversed and held use of plaintiff's cells without permission did not state conversion cause of action.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff did not retain ownership interest in cells after they left his body and thus could not assert conversion claim. Conversion should not lie because it would discourage medical research of cells and patients are adequately protected from abuse because of informed consent laws.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the appellate court's decision, finding plaintiff did not state conversion claim when defendants used plaintiff's cells in medical research without permission because plaintiff had no ownership interest in cells after they left his body; plaintiff did state claim for breach of physician's disclosure obligations.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment