With two suspects involved in the Willed Body Program scandal
already charged and set to face trial, UCLA now faces a lawsuit of
its own after relatives of body donors filed suit against the
university alleging officials were aware of the illegal sales.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit could file a variety of
claims against UCLA, each of which could result in the university
having to pay substantial damages, according to law professors on
campus.
Employers of program director Henry Reid, who was charged with
grand theft on Saturday, could be held liable for his actions even
if they were not fully aware of them.
Maria Boss, a business law lecturer for the UCLA Anderson School
of Management, said UCLA could face a negligence claim based on the
fact that it did not supervise the program closely, resulting in a
breach of its duty.
“Was there some sort of flaw in the supervisory policy? If
they had a duty to respect and protect the remains to be used for a
specific scientific purpose, there could be negligence on the part
of UCLA,” she said.
In defense of such charges, Boss said UCLA could claim the theft
and sale were wrongful acts that were difficult to detect, and that
the medical school had no way of knowing such events were
occurring.
Michael Asimow, professor emeritus for the law school,
corroborated the potential of a negligence claim, adding that UCLA
could be held liable for breaching fiduciary duties ““ in
essence, the responsibility of taking proper care of bodies donated
to the program.
“As a trustee of these bodies, UCLA owes duties to the
people who donated their bodies, and if they failed to do so there
could be very substantial damages,” he said.
UCLA could also be facing breach of contract charges for failing
to carry out duties as prescribed.
When donating their bodies to the Willed Body Program,
participants are required to sign a contract.
Part of the contract authorizes the university to use and
distribute all materials ““ including body fluids, tissues and
organs ““ at the discretion of School of Medicine
officials.
“I hereby declare that, immediately after my death, I wish
my body to be turned over to the UCLA School of Medicine … to be
preserved, used and disposed of in such manner as the University
seems desirable, at its sole discretion, for purposes of medical
teaching, training and research,” reads the contract.
Asimow said the language laid out in the contract provides UCLA
with significant discretion as to how donated bodies are treated
and disposed of.
Given such terms, he said UCLA might have good grounds to defend
itself on any breach of contract claims brought against it.
“It’s hard to imagine though that even with all this
discretion they would have power to let an employee sell parts and
keep the money,” Asimow said.
“It would probably be up to the court to decide whether
the body parts could be sold ““ it’s hard to tell what
will happen exactly,” he added.
According to Boss, UCLA could further be sued for the
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Such a claim arises when conduct by one party leads to severe
emotional distress to another party. In these cases, compensatory
damages are levied to restore parties to conditions prior to the
act being committed.
“In this kind of situation, because we are dealing with
such an emotional case, actual damages are remote, and the recovery
to plaintiffs would more so be through punitive damages,”
Boss said.