Actress's parents take fight to the courts after daughter, 30, died when 'physician associate' she wrongly believed was a doctor misdiagnosed her

Daily Mail​

14-05-2025

The parents of a 30-year-old actress who died after a 'physician associate' she wrongly believed was a doctor misdiagnosed her twice are taking their case to court.
Emily Chesterton died only three weeks after her 30th birthday in 2022 when a clot in her lungs was mistaken for anxiety and a strain.
She believed she had been seen by her GP at her surgery in London but it was a physician associate who prescribed her propranolol, medication for anxiety.
Emily, from Greater Manchester, but who had moved to London to pursue a career in acting, collapsed later that evening.
Although she was rushed to hospital, her heart had stopped beating, and doctors could not save her life.
A coroner concluded Emily could have been saved if she had been to A&E and given treatment for a pulmonary embolism.
Her parents, Marion and Brendon Chesterton, are now launching a legal fight against the General Medical Council (GMC) demanding more regulation.
Doctors are fully licensed medical professionals who diagnose, prescribe, and perform surgeries independently after years of training.
Her parents, Marion and Brendon Chesterton, are now launching a legal fight against the General Medical Council (GMC), with Anaesthetists United, saying that PAs, and anaesthesia associates (AA) should be properly regulated
Physician associates support doctors by carrying out many clinical tasks but must work under a doctor's supervision and typically cannot prescribe or operate.
Their role helps ease pressure on healthcare systems, though it remains a topic of debate.
Ms Chesterton's symptoms included calf pain, a swollen and hot leg, shortness of breath and she was finding it increasingly difficult to walk.
After reaching out to the practice the first time, the PA recommended she take paracetamol, but her condition became worse and at one point was having difficulty walking and was breathless and lightheaded, her mother told the BBC.
She claims the second appointment her daughter was diagnosed with calf sprain, long Covid and anxiety but her calves were not examined and never made clear she was not a doctor.
Ms Chesterton actually had a blood clot in her left leg, which led to her dying of a pulmonary embolism.
Her father, Brendon, said everyone he had spoken to had told him that a pain in the calf was 'medical 101' that it was a clot.
'We've said the name (physician associate) is rather grand,' he said. 'A physician associate sounds even better than junior doctor. The name itself we objected to. We were told nothing could be done about the naming of them. But it suggests someone who is highly trained and highly competent.
Marion and Brendan Chesterton say their daughter, Emily, would still be alive if a physician associate had sent her to A&E rather than misdiagnose her blood clot symptoms as 'anxiety'
'But people I've talked to, they say a pain in the calf is like medical 101. Everyone should realise that that is indicative of some kind of clot. She didn't notify that.'
The GP practice where Emily was seen, the Vale Practice in Crouch End, has since stopped employing PAs.
Backed by the British Medical Association, the Chesterton family is launching a legal battle with the General Medical Council, accusing it of a failure to uphold its legal duties.
They claim the lines between doctors and non-doctors have become blurred, putting patients at risk.
They're asking the GMC to issue a scope of practice document laying out exactly what each role can do to ensure patient safety and clarify expectations.
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 said: '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".'
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'.
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 continued: '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 continued: '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.