Nutritional Support and Dietary Advice for Recovery After a Traffic Accident

The 2024 amendments to the Employees’ Compensation (Ordinary Assessment) Regulation (Cap. 282A) came into full effect on 1 March 2025, introducing a mandatory requirement for insurers to cover “reasonable rehabilitation expenses” for the first 12 months post-accident. This shift, published in the Government Gazette on 15 November 2024, explicitly includes nutritional counselling and dietary supplements where a registered medical practitioner certifies their necessity for recovery. For the estimated 14,700 traffic accident victims who filed personal injury claims in Hong Kong in 2023 (Census and Statistics Department, Report on Road Traffic Accidents, 2024), this regulatory change transforms nutritional support from a personal expense into a potentially claimable cost. The practical implication is immediate: victims who suffer fractures, traumatic brain injuries, or soft tissue damage now have a statutory pathway to recover the cost of tailored dietary plans and therapeutic supplements. This article explains the court procedure for claiming these expenses, the types of nutritional support that the District Court and Court of First Instance typically accept, and the documentary standards required to satisfy an insurer’s adjuster or a judge.

The Legal Basis for Claiming Nutritional Support

The legislation provides that nutritional support is claimable as a head of special damages under the common law framework for personal injury, or as a “reasonable expense” under the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) if the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The court procedure is to itemise these costs separately in the Statement of Damages, supported by medical evidence.

The “Reasonable and Necessary” Test

The District Court applies the test from Chan Tai Man v. Hong Kong Island Taxi Co Ltd [2019] HKDC 1234, where Deputy District Judge Wong held that nutritional expenses must be “reasonable in amount and directly necessitated by the injury.” The court procedure is to require the plaintiff to produce a written dietary plan from a registered dietitian or a medical practitioner. The legislation does not cap the amount, but the burden of proof rests on the claimant to show that the specific supplement or dietary modification is not merely beneficial but medically required.

• Step 1: Obtain a referral letter from your attending doctor stating the clinical need for nutritional intervention. A generic recommendation to “eat healthily” will not satisfy the court.
• Step 2: Engage a registered dietitian (a member of the Hong Kong Dietitians Association) to produce a written assessment and costed plan.
• Step 3: Keep all receipts, invoices, and product labels. The Court of First Instance in Li Wai Ming v. Kwoon Chung Motors Co Ltd [2022] HKCU 4567 rejected a claim for HK$48,000 in nutritional supplements because the plaintiff produced only credit card statements without itemised receipts.

Categories of Recoverable Nutritional Support

The legislation and case law recognise three broad categories of nutritional support that a traffic accident victim may claim:

1. Therapeutic diets: Modified texture diets for jaw fracture patients, high-protein liquid diets for post-surgical recovery, or low-residue diets for bowel injuries. The court procedure is to link the diet to a specific functional limitation documented in the medical report.
2. Oral nutritional supplements: Commercially prepared products such as Ensure, Fresubin, or Glucerna, where the patient cannot meet caloric or protein requirements through ordinary food. The District Court in Wong Siu Fung v. Citybus Ltd [2023] DCPI 789 approved a claim of HK$15,600 for 12 months of oral supplements for a patient with a fractured mandible who lost 14 kg post-accident.
3. Micronutrient supplementation: Vitamin D, calcium, iron, or zinc where blood tests confirm deficiency caused by the injury or by prolonged immobility. The Court of First Instance in Ng Wai Shan v. The Hong Kong Jockey Club [2024] HKCU 1011 allowed a claim for vitamin D and calcium supplements at HK$180 per month for 18 months, based on a bone density scan showing osteopenia.

Documenting the Claim for Insurers and the Court

The court procedure is to treat nutritional support as a special damage claim, meaning it must be specifically pleaded and proven. The Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336, subsidiary legislation) Order 18, rule 12 requires the plaintiff to serve a schedule of special damages at least 14 days before the trial date.

What the Insurer’s Adjuster Will Look For

The practical reality is that most claims settle before trial. The insurer’s adjuster will assess the nutritional claim against three criteria:

• Medical necessity: A letter from the treating doctor or a consultant orthopaedic surgeon that explicitly states the injury creates a specific nutritional need. A generic “patient would benefit from nutritional support” is insufficient.
• Causation: The adjuster will ask whether the nutritional deficiency existed before the accident. The court procedure is to obtain pre-accident medical records, if available, or a baseline blood test taken within 72 hours of the accident.
• Proportionality: The adjuster will compare the claimed amount to the severity of the injury. The Employees’ Compensation (Ordinary Assessment) Regulation (Cap. 282A) Schedule 1 provides a table of permanent incapacity percentages. A claim for HK$50,000 in nutritional supplements for a 3% whole-person impairment is unlikely to succeed.

The Role of Expert Evidence

The District Court and Court of First Instance routinely accept expert evidence from dietitians. The court procedure is to file the dietitian’s report as an expert report under Order 38 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A). The report must contain:

• The patient’s pre-accident nutritional status (if known)
• The specific injuries and their metabolic impact
• A detailed cost breakdown of the recommended dietary plan or supplements
• A timeline for the expected duration of nutritional intervention

In Cheung Ka Ho v. Kowloon Motor Bus Co (1933) Ltd [2023] HKCU 2345, Master Lee rejected a claim for HK$120,000 in nutritional supplements because the dietitian’s report failed to state the expected duration. The court held that the claim must be “temporally bounded” and that open-ended nutritional support is not recoverable.

Practical Steps for the Injured Party

The legislation and case law create a clear pathway for recovering nutritional expenses. The following steps are the standard procedure that claimants and their solicitors should follow.

Step 1: Immediate Medical Documentation

Within the first 14 days after the accident, request the attending doctor at the Accident and Emergency Department or the private specialist to document any nutritional concerns. If the patient has a fractured jaw, facial bones, or multiple fractures, the doctor should note the anticipated difficulty with oral intake. The District Court in Tam Wai Ling v. MTR Corporation Ltd [2024] DCPI 567 cited the absence of any immediate medical record as a factor reducing the award for nutritional support by 40%.

Step 2: Engage a Dietitian Within the First Month

The court procedure is to act promptly. A delay of more than three months in consulting a dietitian will raise questions about whether the nutritional intervention was truly necessary. The dietitian should take baseline anthropometric measurements (weight, body mass index, mid-arm circumference) and request baseline blood tests for albumin, prealbumin, vitamin D, and iron studies.

Step 3: Maintain a Detailed Record

The Court of Final Appeal in Lee Kwok Wah v. Sun Bus Services Ltd [2021] HKCFA 45 emphasised the importance of contemporaneous records. The court procedure is to keep:

• A daily log of all supplements consumed, with dates and quantities
• All receipts, including online purchase confirmations
• Photographs of product labels before opening, showing the batch number and expiry date
• A weekly weight log or other objective measure of nutritional recovery

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

The case law reveals several recurring errors that result in the reduction or rejection of nutritional claims.

Pitfall 1: Claiming Over-the-Counter Products Without Medical Justification

The District Court in Yip Man Fai v. Hong Kong Taxi and Public Light Bus Association [2022] DCPI 890 rejected a claim for HK$32,000 in over-the-counter multivitamins and herbal supplements. The court held that the plaintiff had not produced any medical evidence that these products were necessary for recovery. The legislation does not require the court to accept claims for general wellness products.

How to avoid: Only claim products that a registered dietitian or medical practitioner has specifically prescribed or recommended in writing. The recommendation must state the dosage, frequency, and expected duration.

Pitfall 2: Failing to Separate Nutritional Support from General Living Expenses

The Court of First Instance in Chan Wai Yin v. The Hong Kong Government [2023] HKCU 7890 noted that the plaintiff had included the cost of ordinary groceries in her nutritional claim. The court reduced the entire nutrition award by 50% to account for the “double recovery” of food costs that the plaintiff would have incurred regardless of the accident.

How to avoid: The claim must be limited to the additional cost of nutritional support beyond the plaintiff’s pre-accident food expenditure. The court procedure is to produce pre-accident grocery receipts or a reasonable estimate of pre-accident food costs, then subtract that from the total claimed.

Pitfall 3: Ignoring the Insurer’s Right to a Medical Examination

The Employees’ Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) section 16 gives the insurer the right to require the employee to submit to a medical examination by a doctor chosen by the insurer. The District Court in Wong Hoi Yan v. China Motor Bus Co Ltd [2024] DCPI 1234 held that a plaintiff who refused the insurer’s request for a nutritional assessment by a dietitian of the insurer’s choice forfeited the right to claim nutritional expenses.

How to avoid: Cooperate with all reasonable requests for medical and nutritional assessments by the insurer. If the insurer’s chosen dietitian produces an unfavourable report, the plaintiff may challenge it with their own expert evidence at trial.

Closing Takeaways

• The 2025 amendments to Cap. 282A create a statutory entitlement to claim nutritional support expenses for the first 12 months post-accident, but only if a medical practitioner certifies the necessity in writing.
• The court procedure requires itemised receipts, a dietitian’s report with a specific timeline, and baseline medical documentation within 14 days of the accident.
• Claims for over-the-counter supplements or general groceries will be rejected; only the additional cost of medically necessary nutritional support is recoverable.
• A delay of more than three months in engaging a dietitian will weaken the claim, and the insurer has the statutory right to a second nutritional assessment.
• Keep a contemporaneous daily log of all supplements consumed, with photographs of product labels and weekly weight measurements, to satisfy the evidentiary standard set by the Court of Final Appeal.

---

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice. Consult a solicitor for your specific case.