ll be liable for maintenance. He will be liable if it is found that there existed reasonable grounds for the seaman's good-faith belief that he was fit for duty. Burkert v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co., supra; Couts v. Erickson, 5th Cir. 1957, 241 F.2d 499; Lindquist v. Dilkes, 3d Cir. 1942, 127 F.2d 21; Lorensen v. Jenney Mfg. Co., D. Mass. 1967, 155 F. Supp. 213. On the other hand, where the shipowner requires a seaman to submit to a pre-hiring medical examination or interview and the seaman intentionally misrepresents or conceals material medical facts, the disclosure of which is plainly desired, then he is not entitled to an award of maintenance and cure. Evans v. Blidberg Rothchild Co., supra; Burkert v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co., supra, 350 F.2d at 829-830, n. 4; Sulentich v. Interlake Steamship Co., 7th Cir. 1958, 257 F.2d 316; Ahmed v. United States, 2d Cir. 1949, 177 F.2d 898; Diaz v. Gulf Oil Corp., S.D.N.Y. 1965, 237 F. Supp. 261; Atkins v. Crounse Corp., W.D. Kentucky 1961, 196 F. Supp. 904; Milton v. Pure Oil Co., E.D.Va. 1958, 165 F. Supp. 635, aff'd, 4th Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 892; Zackey v. American Export Lines, S.D.N.Y. 1957, 152 F. Supp. 772; Hazelton v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., D. Mass. 1955, 134 F. Supp. 525. Of course, the defense that a seaman knowingly concealed material medical information will not prevail unless there is a causal link between the pre-existing disability that was concealed and the disability incurred during the voyage. Hazelton v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., supra.
The instant case is to be distinguished from those cases involving situations where a shipowner requires a seaman to submit to a pre-hiring medical examination or interview and during the course of such examination or interview, the seaman intentionally misrepresents material facts. Where a seaman is asked to disclose pertinent information during a pre-hiring medical examination or interview and intentionally conceals or misrepresents material facts, he is not entitled to an award of maintenance and cure. See, e.g., Rosenquist v. Isthmian S.S. Co., 205 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1953); Adams v. American Export Lines, 1964 A.M.C. 2659 (S.D.N.Y.); Atkins v. Crounse Corporation, 196 F. Supp. 904 (W.D.Ky. 1961); Milton v. Pure Oil Co., 165 F. Supp. 635 (E.D.Va. 1958); Zackey v. American Export Lines, 152 F. Supp. 772 (S.D.N.Y. 1957); Hazelton v. Luckenbach Steamship Line, 134 F. Supp. 525 (D.Mass. 1955); Weller v. United States, 106 F. Supp. 502 (N.D.Cal. 1952). A somewhat similar situation was before the court in Ahmed v. United States, 177 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1949).
Recovery for maintenance and cure is available to any seaman who becomes ill or injured while in the service of his ship and not even the seaman's own negligence will bar recovery. Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962); Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U.S. 724, 63 S.Ct. 930, 87 L.Ed. 1107; Calmar S.S. Corporation v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 58 S.Ct. 651, 82 L.Ed. 993 (1938); Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Company, 374 U.S. 16, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 10 L.Ed.2d 720 (1963); Solet v. M/V Capt. H.V. Dufrene, 303 F. Supp. 980 (E.D.La., 1969); Cox v. Dravo Corporation, 517 F.2d 620 (3rd Cir., 1975); Atkins v. Crounse Corporation, 196 F. Supp. 904 (W.D.Ky., 1961). The plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover damages for maintenance and cure; the only issues existing are (1) the daily amount allowable in reference to the maintenance and (2) when maximum medical recovery was reached.