Holding (and Judgment):No. Plaintiff did not state a cause of action based on conversion, but may prosecute the case based on theories of breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent. (Affirmed in part, remanded in part).Pre-Existing Rules:The professional standard of care is for a professional to act as a reasonable and prudent doctor would under similar circumstances.Reasoning:The Court found that the remaining defendants could be liable to Moore for a failure of informed consent if they were vicariously liable for Dr. Golde’s actions and ruled that Moore could amend his complaint to attempt to state a lack of informed consent cause of action against them.Dissents/Concurrences: omittedAnalysis: This case is important because the doctor was benefiting without the patient’s knowledge and it brings up the point, how would we know if the Doctor had the patient’s best interest at heart, or he was only concerned with his economic interest. I agree that the plaintiff has a case for profit loyalties.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read the whole page?
Logic, Appellate court, Supreme Court of California