This blog is co-authored by Yuveshen Naidoo, candidate attorney.

In September 2025, the High Court determined that the claimant’s laser therapy costs for facial scarring qualified as a recoverable past medical expense under section 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act. The court found that non‑invasive laser therapy for severe facial scarring following a motor collision can be treated as a recoverable past medical expense in Road Accident Fund (RAF) litigation where the treatment is clinically indicated and supported by expert evidence. The claimant, who sustained catastrophic facial injuries and permanent disfigurement after being struck by a vehicle while running, settled all other heads of damage.

The court’s record reflects that the treating plastic surgeon recommended laser therapy to improve facial scarring, and another expert gave supporting evidence. The defendant’s own expert, a specialist plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeon, confirmed the severity of the facial trauma and accepted that non‑invasive laser scar and skin rejuvenation over an extended period had produced excellent results with minimal residual scarification. The expert testimony of a laser practitioner described the intervention as appropriate scar management in the circumstances, and the photographic record demonstrated material improvement.

Crucially, the parties’ plastic‑surgery experts signed a joint minute recording consensus that laser scar therapy is an excellent non‑invasive modality for scar management and that, in this case, it yielded exceptional results. The joint minute also captured the course and cost of treatment.

The analysis turns on causation, medical necessity and reasonableness. When a non‑surgical intervention is prescribed or recommended by the treating specialist and corroborated by independent expert evidence, especially where surgical revision is contraindicated, then courts can treat the expenditure as part of the claimant’s past hospital and medical expenses flowing from the accident. The judgment therefore underscores that cosmetic therapies may be compensable where they serve a rehabilitative function, supported by outcomes evidence and proper clinical rationale.

This judgment reinforces that the dividing line between cosmetic and medical treatment is not rigid in personal injury claims. Where a therapy demonstrably restores function, appearance, and psychological well-being after severe trauma and is supported by expert consensus, courts are prepared to treat it as a legitimate medical expense.

Allen v Road Accident Fund (9521/2019) [2025] ZAWCHC 422 (12 September 2025)