BMA secures right to use evidence in PA challenge

The BMA has been granted permission to submit evidence to a legal challenge against the regulation of PAs (physician associates) and AAs (anaesthesia associates) following a decision by the High Court.

A judge has ruled that the association is allowed to ‘serve and rely upon evidence’ as part of an upcoming judicial review against the GMC, brought by the campaign group AU (Anaesthetists United).

The legal challenge, which is being financially supported by the BMA, is also being brought by Marion and Brendan Chesterton, whose daughter Emily died in 2022 after being misdiagnosed by a PA whom she believed was a GP.

AU and the Chestertons will seek to argue that the GMC’s decision not to introduce or adopt a national scope of practice for PAs and AAs is unlawful and a failure of its duty to protect patients by properly regulating these healthcare workers. Further aspects of AU’s claim relate to failures regarding supervision and ensuring informed consent is obtained.

Although the BMA is listed as an interested party to the claimants’ case, lawyers for the GMC had sought to argue that allowing the association to submit evidence would cause ‘difficulties’ to the proceedings. The BMA had argued that the issues raised in the claim have been and continue to be of very significant concern to that profession, as well as being of great importance to patients and the public more broadly, and that it was well placed to offer assistance to the court.

In an order made on 4 April, Mr Justice Saini, however, ruled he had not been persuaded by the medical regulators’ claims that evidence submitted by the BMA would cause difficulties to their legal preparations.

He further added that the BMA’s evidence would prove relevant and likely to assist judges tasked with considering the substantive claim of the case.

He said: ‘Having considered the material which is sought to be put before the Court, and these recent submissions, I was not persuaded that the GMC would face the difficulties it says [it] [SR2] would have in preparing for a hearing which is still some six weeks from now.

‘These complaints appear to me, with respect, to be somewhat exaggerated when one reflects on the nature of the new evidence.

‘I consider the judge or judges considering the substantive claim will be assisted by this evidence; and it would be wrong for them to consider the underlying legal issues without the full range of relevant evidence and the history.’

The case being brought by AU and the Chestertons is scheduled to be heard at the High Court in London between 13 and 14 May.

A separate judicial review brought by the BMA against the GMC over the latter’s decision to apply the term ‘medical professionals’ to doctors and PAs/AAs, concluded in February with a judgment in the case expected in the coming weeks.