Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:58:53.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Developments in Health Law: UCLA Willed Body Program Comes Under Scrutiny as Companies Sued for the Purchase of Body Parts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Amy Ling
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , Fall 2004 , pp. 532 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Riccardi, N., “Suit Targets Firms That Purchased Body Farts,” Los Angeles Times, March 17, 2003, at B-3Google Scholar
Yerton, S., “Metairie Law Firm Sues Over Cadavers; It Joins L.A. Firm in Class-action Case,” Times-Picayune, March 17, 2004, at Money-1.Google Scholar
This is a reference to the case being handled by Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP. In light of the alleged sale scandal, Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP filed an action on behalf of all families whose loved ones were donated to the UCLA Willed Body Program on March 8, 2004. This firm has been in litigation with UCLA since 1996 for separate claims of mishandling remains of those donated to the Willed Body Program.Google Scholar
Bloomekatz, A., “Sold Body Parts from UCLA Program Spawn Second Suit,” Daily Bruin via University Wire, March 18, 2004, at: Yerton, , supra note 2. Law firms have been volunteering their services in this suit, several of whom are involved with ClassActionAmerica.com.Google Scholar
ClassActionAmerica.com; Yerton, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Yerton, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
“UCLA: Companies Sued for Alleged Purchase of Body Parts,” American Health Line “In the Courts,” March 18, 2003.Google Scholar
Yerton, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
“UCLA: Companies Sued for Alleged Purchase of Body Parts,” supra note 7.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Yerton, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Ornstein, C., “Arrest Made in Cadaver Inquiry; Investigating the Alleged Sale of Corpses and Parts, UCLA Says it Plans to Seek Grand Theft Charges Against the Director of its Willed Body Program,” Los Angeles Times, March 7, 2004, at A-1.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Yerton, , supra note 2; Ornstein, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
Ornstein, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. (quoting Bruce Mitchell’s preliminary ruling).Google Scholar
Ornstein, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
“UCLA: Man Admits to Sale of Body Parts Willed for Research,” American Health Line, “Provider News,” March 8, 2004.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Ornstein, C. and Marosi, R., “$704,600 Billed for Cadavers; Invoices on UCLA Letterhead Show 496 corpses Were Sold to a Middleman Since 1998,” Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2004, at A-1.Google Scholar
“UCLA: Man Admits to Sale of Body Parts Willed for Research,” supra note 19.Google Scholar
Ornstein, and Marosi, , supra note 21.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
“UCLA: Man Admits to Sale of Body Parts Willed for Research,” supra note 19.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Ornstein, and Marosi, , supra note 21.Google Scholar
Riccardi, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Yerton, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Ornstein, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
“$704,600 Billed for Cadavers; Invoices on UCLA Letterhead Show 496 corpses Were Sold to a Middleman Since 1998,” supra note 21.Google Scholar
“UCLA: Man Admits to Sale of Body Parts Willed for Research,” supra note 19.Google Scholar