This appeal in a case brought under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act1 is from a judgment entered upon the following verdict:

"We, the Jury, find for the plaintiff for 200 weeks total incapacity and 0 weeks partial incapacity. We find the difference between plaintiff's average weekly wages before his injury and his average weekly earning capacity to be $____ We further find for (for or against) accelerated payments.

      "/s/ Roy Diefel
              "Foreman

"Question:

"Were the medical aid, hospital services, medicines, etc., which were furnished by Dr. Hohf, reasonable and needed by plaintiff for proper diagnosis and treatment?

"Answer: Yes

   "/s/ Roy Diefel
           "Foreman"

The contention on appeal is restricted to that portion of the judgment awarding the plaintiff reimbursement in the amount of $1,424.69 for medical aid, hospital services, medicines, etc. for which he had contracted directly.

The controlling Texas statutes are Article 8306, Section 7, Texas Vernon's Ann.Civil Statutes, as amended, Acts 1957, 55th Legislature, p. 1186, ch. 397, § 1,2 and perhaps also Section 7a of the same Article, last amended in 1953.3

Either included by implication in the jury's verdict, or found by the trial court under the provisions of Rule 49(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A.,4 is a finding that the appellant insurance carrier failed to furnish reasonable medical aid, hospital services and medicines as and when needed. The appellant urges that there was either no evidence or insufficient evidence to support that finding. Without detailing the testimony on that issue, it is enough to say that we agree with the district court that it was sufficient to support such finding.

Appellant's next contention is that, since it is undisputed that no order of the Texas Industrial Accident Board was obtained for a change in medical aid, hospital services or medicines, Section 7a of Article 8306, Texas Vernon's Ann. Civil Statutes, quoted in footnote 3, supra, is an insuperable obstacle to plaintiff's recovery for such items. Admittedly, this point has not been clearly settled by any decision of the State courts. The one closest in point appears to be Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Bradshaw, Tex.Civ.App., 1930, 27 S.W.2d 314, where recovery for medical services separately secured by the injured party was sustained. The opinion in that case does not, however, discuss the provisions of Section 7a, supra. Further, the evidence in that case is much clearer than in this that the insurance carrier acquiesced in the second doctor treating the injured workman until he recovered. Appellant insists that Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Hodnett, Tex.Civ.App., 1948, 216 S.W.2d 301, is controlling. That case, however, was decided under the statute prior to its amendment in 1957. The old statute required express authorization by the Industrial Accident Board for medical services beyond the initial four-week period, and the medical services for which recovery was denied in the Hodnett case were performed after that period. For the same reason, as well as others not necessary to be detailed, this Court's decision in Robertson v. National Surety Corp., 5 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 642, is not applicable to the present question. In the absence of an authoritative interpretation of Section 7a by the State courts, the district court and this Court must of necessity determine the meaning and applicability of that Section.

Some guidance is furnished by the general rule that the Workmen's Compensation Act should be liberally construed so as to effectuate the beneficent purposes for which it was enacted.5 Section 7, quoted in part in footnote 2, supra, clearly provides that,

"If the association fails to so furnish reasonable medical aid, hospital services, nursing, chiropractic services and medicines as and when needed after notice of the injury to the association or subscriber, the injured employee may provide said medical aid, nursing, hospital services, chiropractic services, and medicines at the cost and expense of the association."

That provision does not seem to us to be qualified by Section 7a. Many cases might arise in which the securing of reasonable medical aid, hospital services and medicines was urgent or certainly could not await the time that would be necessary to obtain a change order from the Board. Section 7a seems intended simply as a means, when circumstances will permit, to decide in advance on the necessity for a change. It does not, in our opinion, preclude recovery where, as here, the insurer has in fact failed to furnish reasonable medical aid, hospital services and medicines as and when needed after notice of the injury, the services and aid being furnished by the insurer were inadequate, and the circumstances were such as to support a finding that it knew or ought to have known that this was so. The fact that no express demand was made upon the carrier to furnish additional medical service does not preclude recovery here. For, upon sufficient evidence, the jury found that such expenses were reasonable and were needed by the plaintiff for proper diagnosis and treatment, and the court, which had reserved the right to determine whether they were recoverable, determined that they were.

Affirmed.