The opinion of the court was delivered by: KRAFT
This action in admiralty for maintenance only is before us on the record made at the trial of Civil Action No. 27626, 231 F.Supp. 192, in which the present libellant recovered a verdict and judgment under the Jones Act.
From the evidence, we make the following
1. On November 5, 1958, libellant was employed as an electrician aboard the S.S. American Builder, a vessel owned and operated by the respondent, and then docked in the Port of London.
2. At about 2 o'clock that morning, while he was asleep in his bunk, libellant suffered a heart attack in the nature of a myocardial infarct caused by an occlusion or stoppage in the coronary arteries.
3. As a result of his heart attack, libellant was confined in the Dreadnought Hospital, London, for three weeks. He was then returned to the United States and was an inpatient at the Staten Island Marine Hospital for nine days. Thereafter, libellant received medical treatment at the Baltimore Marine Hospital as an outpatient until April 28, 1959, when his myocardial infarct was healed and libellant indicated he felt ready to return to work. He was determined to be fit for duty, but told to return in one month 'if in town'. (Libellant's Exhibit P-10).
4. On May 28, 1959, libellant returned to the Baltimore Marine Hospital for a check-up, and indicated that he had applied for a job. This re-examination again disclosed that his myocardial infarct was healed and that he was fit for duty. (Libellant's Exhibit P-10).
5. Libellant has received no medical attention since about January 1961, when his family doctor gave him a physical examination, including a cardiogram, and medication in the form of pills.
6. Libellant has received maintenance up to April 29, 1959, inclusive.
7. Libellant achieved the maximum cure possible on May 28, 1959, when, for the second time, he was discharged from the Baltimore Marine Hospital as fit for duty.
8. The parties have stipulated a rate of $ 8 daily for any maintenance due.
Whatever may have been the rule in former times, it is now settled that the duty of a shipowner to furnish maintenance and cure does not extend beyond the time when the maximum cure possible has been effected. The question was set at rest in Farrell v. United States, 336 U.S. 511, 69 S. Ct. 707, 93 L. Ed. 850 (1949). In that case, the Court, speaking of the Geneva draft convention adopted in 1939, stated (336 U.S. p. 518, 69 S. Ct. p. 711):
'That the duty of the ship to maintain and care for the seaman after the end of the voyage only until he was so far cured as possible, seems to have been the doctrine of the American admiralty courts prior to the adoption of the Convention by Congress, despite occasional ambiguity of language or reservation as to possible situations ...