Couple Launch Action Against UCI and Clinic : Reproduction: They allege that more than 30 of their embryos and the woman's eggs are missing and might have produced children unknown to them.

By MICHAEL GRANBERRY

June 30, 1995 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

IRVINE — An Orange County couple took legal action Thursday against UC Irvine and its Center for Reproductive Health, alleging that more than 30 of their embryos and the woman’s eggs are missing or unaccounted for, and might have been used to produce children the couple know nothing about.

Deborah Ann Beasley, 35, and her husband, Kent Beasley, 45, served UCI officials with a formal claim that precedes the filing of a lawsuit by six months. They took the action on behalf of themselves, their three children and “all of their other children, if any.”

In the sixth such claim now pending against UCI, the couple accuse the school’s internationally renowned fertility clinic of having lost their medical records and of shipping frozen eggs and embryos to various clinics for research purposes without their consent. The couple believe the eggs are now in Los Angeles, but say they cannot confirm that.

“They’re seriously stressed out about it,” said Walter G. Koontz Jr., the couple’s Newport Beach attorney. “Especially since they continue to read day after day after day about all of the allegations brought forth. We’ve seen some pretty hard-core evidence regarding lack of procedures and protocol, and Deborah and Kent realize they’re right in the middle of it.”

UCI officials could not be reached for comment on Thursday. Deborah and Kent Beasley declined to be interviewed, allowing their attorney to speak for them.

But Patrick Moore, attorney for Dr. Jose P. Balmaceda, a doctor at the center and one of the parties named in the claim, said that what “has been presented to date are unproven allegations. We have not had an opportunity to have any sort of hearing or put on a defense against any allegations in a forum that meets due-process standards.”

Dr. Ricardo H. Asch, director of UCI’s fertility clinic, and his colleagues, Drs. Balmaceda and Sergio Stone, have denied any wrongdoing but are now the subject of seven separate investigations, including one by the Orange County district attorney’s office.

The doctors are accused of harvesting human eggs and embryos and implanting them in other women without the consent of donor or recipient, of conducting human-subject research without consent, of engaging in financial irregularities and of using drugs not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Beasleys’ claim notes that the couple enlisted Asch’s services in 1990, and that Asch first performed in-vitro fertilization on the Beasleys in January of that year.

In 1991, the couple underwent the so-called GIFT procedure pioneered by Asch and his colleagues, which Koontz said resulted in the birth of their twins, now 3. A third child named in the claim is Deborah Beasley’s daughter from a previous marriage, her attorney said.

GIFT involves placing sperm and eggs separately in a woman’s Fallopian tube and hoping a pregnancy results. In the in-vitro procedure, the entire fertilization process is conducted outside the woman’s body, usually in a test tube.

During the GIFT procedure, Deborah Beasley was found to be pregnant with triplets, Koontz said. But she lost one of the embryos after nine weeks, and, according to Koontz, was then approached by Asch, who wanted “to do a study” of the Beasley case.

At that time Asch also harvested “30 or more” of Deborah Beasley’s eggs without her consent, far more than necessary for in-vitro fertilization, Koontz alleged.

In August, 1992, shortly after her twins were born, Asch informed Deborah Beasley that he had harvested 30 or more eggs, Koontz said. This was the first time the couple learned that so many eggs were taken, he said.

“She told him she didn’t want them destroyed, didn’t want research done on them, didn’t want them donated. . . . She was also informed that at least 11 had been fertilized,” Koontz said.

After reading news accounts of the scandal at UCI, the couple approached Koontz.

The lawyer said UCI officials told the Beasleys in late May that they could not obtain their medical records because the officials didn’t know where they were.

Deborah Beasley then managed to reach Asch himself, “who told her, ‘We have no records. We can’t find them,’ ” Koontz said. Asch also told Deborah Beasley that “it’s up to you to decide what to do with the eggs left over from your procedure,” but left it up to her to find them, Koontz said.

The attorney said he has since been told that the eggs are frozen in a center in Los Angeles, after having been shipped from UCI Medical Center to Saddleback Memorial Medical Center. The couple’s procedures took place at both UCI and Saddleback.

Ronald G. Brower, Asch’s attorney, said Thursday that Asch had commissioned an independent inventory, as has UCI, of the frozen eggs and embryos in question. In addition, Brower said that Asch plans to notify all his former patients by mail on Monday of where the tissues are being held.

“The letter describes in detail the facility where the tissues are being stored--California Cryobank, in Westwood, which is state-licensed and accredited by the American Assn. of Tissue Banks,” Brower said. “That’s where all of the embryos and in some cases the sperm are being cryogenically preserved. They were only recently moved there from one of the UCI facilities.”

Brower said the letter will also “describe a process whereby the people can access and retrieve their tissues, should they choose to do so. We’ll give them a phone number and tell them how to do it.” Named in the Beasleys’ claim are the UC Board of Regents, UCI, UCI Medical Center, the Center for Reproductive Health, UCI Infertility Institute and Drs. Asch and Balmaceda.

The Beasley claim accuses Asch and his colleagues of having “sold, donated, converted, misappropriated or destroyed [the couple’s] eggs or embryos; or otherwise used them for impregnating” other clients, “which may have resulted in the birth of one or more of [the couple’s] children by other unknown surrogate parents.”

If that occurred, Deborah and Kent Beasley could be liable “for the support of additional children and may be required to share inheritances with other [unknown and as yet unaccounted for] children and other financial damages not known at present,” the claim says.