Grieving family sues over physician associate's misdiagnosis ‘to honour their daughter'

Telegraph

14-05-2025

The grieving parents of a woman who was misdiagnosed by a physician associate hope a legal challenge they are bringing will honour her.
Emily Chesterton, 30, died in November 2022 after twice being misdiagnosed by a physician associate (PA) whom she believed was a GP.
Her parents, Marion and Brendon Chesterton, are bringing legal action against the General Medical Council (GMC), with Anaesthetists United, saying that PAs, and anaesthesia associates (AAs) should be properly regulated.
Supported by the British Medical Association (BMA), the Chestertons say the GMC has failed in its statutory duty and there has been a blurring of lines between doctors and non-doctors.
They are bringing the claim with Anaesthetists United, and say the GMC should produce a scope of practice – a document outlining the activities someone is permitted to perform – so patient safety is assured, and people can have certainty about what is expected from each of the roles.
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Marion Chesterton said: 'To lose a child is so painful, it is not the right order of this world.
'However, to lose a child and then discover it was avoidable is the worst pain ever.
'We do not want anyone else going through the torture we have endured. Physician associates and anaesthesia associates must be regulated thoroughly, they must be properly supervised.'
Mrs Chesterton told the PA news agency: 'We're here to honour our daughter to make sure that this doesn't happen to any other family. No more Emilys.
'We're here to ask the GMC to do their job and regulate, it's been assigned to them by Parliament, so they've got to do the job.
'If I didn't do this. I'd just lie down in a ditch somewhere and let the world pass me by. I've had to do it because I was so angry.
'When I found out that PAs weren't regulated I was absolutely devastated, I thought 'this, this is wrong'.'
PAs and AAs are neither doctors nor medically qualified, but they are recognised as providing support to doctors and anaesthetists as a part of a multidisciplinary team.
At the start of the hearing on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Lambert said: 'This case is not just about regulation of assistants, it is about regulation of the medical profession, and that is how I see it.'
Thomas De La Mare KC, representing the Chestertons and Anaesthetists United, told the court: 'At its heart, this case is critically about risk and about the regulation response to risk.'
In written submissions, he said the GMC is 'failing to fulfil its regulatory role on an ongoing basis and this court should find that that is unlawful'.
'Fundamentally flawed'
Mr De La Mare also said the GMC had failed to produce guidance or set standards either for the doctors supervising associates, or for the associates themselves.
It has further failed to 'gather sufficient information to address the question of how it should regulate associates, then lawfully address and answer that question', the court was told.
Mr De La Mare added: 'The GMC's foundational premise, never consulted upon, that the system for regulating doctors would be appropriate for regulating associates, was and is fundamentally flawed.'
In written submissions, Rory Dunlop KC, for the GMC, said the argument for a defined scope of practice raises the question of whether it would be in the public interest to impose such 'rigid' limits on PAs and AAs.
Saying the court has no 'expertise or experience' in this field, he added: 'There might be benefits to public safety of imposing limits of the kind that claimants suggest.
'However, there might also be harm to public safety in imposing such limits, e.g. such limits would prevent PAs and AAs from developing their skills, in a suitable supervised setting, and might inhibit some PAs and AAs from doing work they could be competent to do.
'If so, that would have a negative impact on the stretched resources of the NHS and the capacity of doctors to deal with more complex patient issues.
'That, in turn, would have a negative impact on patient safety by making it less likely that patients can get the timely treatment they need.'
He added that no party in the proceedings considers that the GMC is the body best placed to define the scope for PAs or AAs.
The hearing before Mrs Justice Lambert is due to conclude on Thursday with a decision expected in writing at a later date.