California expands the duty to warn patients exposed to and infected with HIV. Reisner v. Regents of the University of California

There is still no general definitive guide for hospitals and other health care providers concerning the extent of their duty to warn third parties of a patient's HIV status. However, even in states like California that have statutorily eliminated any duty to directly inform third parties, the Reisner case clearly indicates that liability to third parties may arise indirectly based on a failure to warn HIV-exposed or -infected patients of their status and the risks of communicating the virus to others. Accordingly, health care providers should take several actions: 1. Ascertain, with the assistance of legal counsel, the precise dictates of applicable state statutes and case law regarding (a) a provider's obligation to warn HIV-exposed or -infected individuals of the potential of communicating the virus to others; (b) additional statutory requirements such as notification of public health authorities; and (c) whether notice to third parties at risk of exposure from the patient is required or even permitted. 2. Develop and implement written policies regarding notification and counseling of exposed or infected patients, including counseling patients on the risks of communicating the virus to third parties; and 3. Develop and implement written policies regarding permissive or mandatory notification and counseling of exposed or infected third parties. In this context, providers should be aware that patient confidentiality and privacy laws may prohibit disclosure of the identity of exposed or infected patients to third parties.     

"No compensation" or "pro compensation": Moore v. Regents and default rules for human tissue donations

The much studied case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California is often considered important in property law for denying property rights in human tissue. This widespread misunderstanding of Moore has not only misplaced the legal emphasis of human tissue donations on property law instead of contract law, but has also hindered the creation of a much-needed default rule governing the issue of compensation for donated tissue. While it is possible that the majority of donors rarely consider compensation as an incentive to donate, without a legally recognized default rule the law remains blurred as to what contractual provisions apply to the exchange between donor and researcher. This Article argues that the solution is a weak default rule of no compensation that may be overridden by evidence that the parties intended otherwise.     

Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens: An Unnecessary Tangle

The opinions of the minority risk creating a dangerous inroad into Salamon and Caparo. The opinions of the majority avoid that risk but reach the right result by tortuous reasoning. The answer to the case lies in a proper application of Caparo.