Celebrity dumps disabled man on island.

[98Charlie]

I know that the insurance we buy covers pre-existing conditions. But we purchase it far enough in advance to get that coverage.

 

But, was he disembarked for a medical reason or because of a violation of the contract of passage? It really seems that it was the latter. He was not self sufficient. He was given opportunity to complete the cruise with stipulations (hire an aide).

 

Would insurance pay for his transport back under these conditions? I think not and he would end up with a suit against the insurance company.

 

Charlie

[fungo]

Charlie,

 

Good point. I doubt insurance would have covered him. Anyone know for sure?

 

It would have, however, covered the costs of canceling the cruise in the first place, and rescheduling it for when his wife was no longer ill.

 

I have a condition with my legs and I could feel fine 2 days before a cruise and be in the hospital 1 day before. I never book without insurance. I'm not a "seasoned traveler" though ;)

[Dan Askin]

Dan, what's the status? Someone not available, maybe?

 

Sorry for the delay. Still trying to confirm Keskeny's timeline and a few pieces of information about ADA compliance and foreign-flagged vessels. Shooting for early afternoon for the update.

[gentlemancruiser]

Here is the link to the cruiser's lawyer's interview (the lawyer is blind):

 

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/oakland_county/disabled-man-gets-kicked-off-a-nude-cruise-in-guadalupe-just-4-days-into-the-10-day-trip

 

Totally one sided piece by ABC news, there no excuse for not reporting both sides of the issue. ABC news should be ashamed.

[NLH Arizona]

And yet here they are, in the middle of a lawsuit. So to me the lawsuit point is mute.

 

I do not feel it is a service they should provide, but they let him board and apparently without a completed questionnaire regarding his need for a handicapped room. They had already begun the cruise. Yes, I do think with all things considered they should have bit the bullet and done what they needed to do to get him through the cruise. I don't believe anywhere in the information does it imply he needed a doctor or nurse at his beck and call. Under the circumstances they could have relied on the butler to secure additional help when needed. Should it have gotten that far? No. But it did and I think it was wrong to force him to disembark on one of the islands. Yes, it was wrong of him to take the cruise alone in the first place, but I believe this falls under the umbrella of 'two wrongs don't make a right'. I think their reaction was extreme.

 

You missed the point about the doctor and nurse - a crew member is not licensed to be a caregiver, the only ones on the ship that would be trained in lifting someone in and out of bed, etc., would have been the doctor and nurse. It is not the butler's job to lift a dressed man, needless to say a naked man (since he said he was on his dream cruise..cruising the Caribbean naked), on and off the toilet....the butler is not trained and would put the passenger at risk not to mention he risks hurting himself.

 

Also keep in mind that his attorney is suing an airline. One of the reasons is this comment about one of his clients in the lawsuit: a Roseville resident who uses a wheelchair due to quadriplegia, has been dropped to the floor due to improper assistance.

[Dale]

Here is the link to the cruiser's lawyer's interview (the lawyer is blind):

 

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/oakland_county/disabled-man-gets-kicked-off-a-nude-cruise-in-guadalupe-just-4-days-into-the-10-day-trip

 

I have a simple question.

The lawyer says the toilet was not ADA compliant..

The question.

Is the lawyers toilet ADA compliant should his client need to use it?

[NLH Arizona]

And yet here they are, in the middle of a lawsuit. So to me the lawsuit point is mute.

 

 

If they would have dropped him and injured him in anyway, his lawsuit would turn into a personal injury lawsuit and the gentleman would be able to get punitive damages, which I believe any judge or jury would award if someone hurt him.

[cnote100]

Charlie,

 

Good point. I doubt insurance would have covered him. Anyone know for sure?

 

It would have, however, covered the costs of canceling the cruise in the first place, and rescheduling it for when his wife was no longer ill.

 

I have a condition with my legs and I could feel fine 2 days before a cruise and be in the hospital 1 day before. I never book without insurance. I'm not a "seasoned traveler" though ;)

 

I might be wrong, but I believe the insurance issue was brought up more to think about what the traveller's options would have been prior to the cruise. The thought being, that since his wife got sick and couldn't cruise, many policies would allow both to get reimbursed for not going on the cruise. That way he wouldn;t have had to travel alone in the first place, and would not have been out the $$ either.

 

I think the consensus is that the insurance wouldn't cover him being disembarked for the reasons stated by the cruiseline - i.e. not fufilling his end of the cruise contract.

 

My only thought to the insurance issue being - I know often that group packages booked through a TA usually include Insurance, is this typical or common for a chartered cruise when you book through the chartering group?

[PartyAllDaTyme]

Totally one sided piece by ABC news, there no excuse for not reporting both sides of the issue. ABC news should be ashamed.

 

In fairness to ABC News, the report was from WXYZ-TV, an ABC affiliate. I agree, very inaccurate and biased report. Guadelupe, Mexico? Fact checking is evidently not their strong suit.

 

I'm holding off further speculation on the particulars of the situation until Dan Askin's followup article comes out and we have more facts (thanks for the update, Dan!).

[woodofpine]

There is a huge difference between nursing home level care, and assisted living level care. It seems he required the former in some respects, and no cruise ship, Celebrity or otherwise, should be expected to provide it. As a seasoned traveler, he should have done proper research to determine if he was able to handle the cruise alone. These statements just seem obvious to me.

 

All that said, I think insisting he disembark is too extreme a reaction. By the time the issues presented themselves the ship had sailed, figuratively and literally. IMHO Celebrity should have done what they needed to, to make it work. No, it is not their responsibility, but they let him board and to kick him off mid-cruise I think is ridiculous (and I am a BIG Celebrity fan).

 

Phoenix - I'm aligned with you completely. Well said.

 

Sure, for their own pleasure, travelers ought to study and research their planned travel. And certainly, that goes double for one with disabilities. So, the complainant was naive at best. BUT... the lines do push an all encompassing and all inclusive image (which experienced cruisers well know the limitations of but) that newbies can be overly seduced by. A declining MS patient can over estimate their abilities in keeping up the good fight.

 

Strictly from a business standpoint, was putting this disabled guy ashore a 'smart move'... Hmmm, even if a case is thrown out of court quickly (how much does THAT cost?); do you suppose making that point is worth it? Apparently, they had the ability to accommodate the guy onboard... They offered that. Why not provide it, bill for it, and simply make this a 'collection dispute' after the fact. Do they really expect to be overrun by scheming MS patients and amputees?! C'mon...

 

My mom managed to get in 4 cruises wheelchair bound (with travelling asst.) with MS, finally passing due to it with related age complications last Sept. It's a nasty condition - but living can be that way - she was certainly more stoic and cheerful than I...

 

Altogether, I think X should have just documented the need for a nurse, provided it, charged for it - and run it on the guys card! Even if he got is reversed, there would be better ways of dealing with it than this result. After all, putting a disabled ashore is great from a public relations and risk management standpoint (just be glad he got home OK).

[kitkat9438]

Phoenix - I'm aligned with you completely. Well said.

 

Sure, for their own pleasure, travelers ought to study and research their planned travel. And certainly, that go double for one with disabilities. So, the complainant was naive at best. BUT... the lines do push an all encompassing and all inclusive image (which experienced cruisers well know the limitations of but) that newbies can be overly seduced by. A declining MS patient can over estimate their abilities in keeping up the good fight.

 

Strictly from a business standpoint, was putting this disabled guy ashore a 'smart move'... Hmmm, even if a case is thrown out of court quickly (how much does THAT cost?); do you suppose making that point is worth it? Obviously, they had the ability to accommodate the guy onboard... Why not provide it, bill for it, and simply make this a 'collection dispute' after the fact. Do they really expect to be overrun by scheming MS patients and amputees?! C'mon...

 

My mom managed to get in 4 cruises wheelchair bound (with travelling asst.) with MS finally passing due to it with related age complications last Sept. It's a nasty condition - but living can be that way - she was certainly more stoic and cheerful than I...

 

Altogether, I think X should have just documented the need for a nurse, provided it, charged for it - and run it on the guys card! Even if he got is reversed, there would be better ways of dealing with it than this result.

 

Ok, now you are creating a whole other set of problems. You cannot "force" someone to get a nurse and charge it to their credit card without their permission, whether he got it reversed or not. He obviously was given the option of hiring a nurse in lieu of getting off the ship and finding his own way home, which he declined. That's credit card fraud. I'm sure they did document the need for a nurse and assistance, via the fact that he visited the ship's doctor. That does not mean it is Celebrity's responsibility to foot the bill for the personsal care of a cruise passenger. A cruise ship is not a floating nursing home or assisted living facility with trained caretakers onboard. What kind of precedent would this set anyway?

 

And from what I've read they didn't just dump him on an island, but took him to the airport where he could make arrangements. For a "seasoned" traveler this should not have been too difficult even if it wasn't the outcome he wanted for his cruise vacation.

 

Sorry about your mom, but would you have sent her on a cruise without assistance expecting her to fend for herself? And if she couldn't take care of herself, would you then have expected Celebrity to come to her aid and hire a nurse for her and foot the bill, or just charge it to her credit card, once she refused to accept the help?

[CaroleLee]

Thanks for posting the link to the story. It's interesting to note that he admits that he has cruised before. I was wondering about that. It is safe to assume that he was disabled at the time of previous cruises, right? So he should know the level of service that he could expect from members of a crew on a cruiseship and that they are not, in fact, caregivers who he could pay to be his personal assistants. He also states that the only reason Celebrity "kicked him off" is because of him falling off the toliet which was not raised. What about his need for help getting in and out of the bathroom, getting in and out of his chair, and their refusal to help him with that? The bottom line is he needed help and was not self sufficient.

 

I like the comment made above, if you go to a restaurant should the waitress be responsible for lifting you out of your chair and putting you in a booth? After all, she knew when she saw you coming that you were disabled and you would need extra help. Please. Her responsibility would be to find a table where you could move a chair out of the way to accomodate the wheelchair.

 

He may claim he doesn't remember filling out the form for his accessible cabin, maybe his wife filled it out. Surely being a seasoned travel, he still knows the rules and I would know enough to ask for something special I might need to assist me in traveling, whether it's a raised toliet seat or whatever. Again, the issue of the toliet seat not being raised was never mentioned in the first article and how did he make it the first few days with the toliet he had in his cabin and in the public restrooms without problems?

 

We all fill out those forms at the pier certifying we are not sick so that we don't expose other passengers. If we are or have been sick, Celebrity has every right to cancel our cruise passage, without recourse to us because we signed a contract to that extent. This man cannot expect anything less.

 

This was all about choices. First his choice to go alone, instead of bringing someone with him to assist him, when the extra passage was already paid; Second, chosing not to accept the remedy that Celebrity and the Cruise Tour Agency had arranged for him by getting him a nurse. But everyone is right on that aspect, he wouldn't have a lawsuit if he had accepted a nurse, would he?

 

If I get sick on the cruiseship and they tell me I have to stay in my cabin so I don't expose others, am I to sue the cruiseline for ruining my cruise? Rules are the rules and you have to abide by them whether you like them or not.

 

Once Celebrity became aware of the situation they had a duty and an obligation to make sure that this man was safe and not in danger, whether that meant he got the help he needed at his own expense or ended his cruise and went home. Couldn't get much simpler than that. He had the choice to stay on that ship and finish his cruise and he refused to take it.

 

DITTO!!! We all have to read the information provided by the cruiseline/airline etc.He stated that he cruised before-so no excuse for "not knowing/not aware of". As stated by OP a cruiseship is not a nursing home/assited living facility. His wife cx due to illness & he left her @ home!!? If she was too ill to travel why didn't he rebook? Just a guess but the Mrs. probably provides a great deal of ADL assistance @ home-why would he even theorize that the cruiseline would provide ADL assistance? This is not a case of noro where you are confined to cabin but a true safety issue-what if he had slipped out of his wheelchair -alone in his cabin- and lay on the floor until steward came to make up the bed the next morning? Who's fault would it be? Unfortunately no one wants to leave/put off a cruise but we all have to take responsibility for our own actions. There is no reason why "X" should be liable for any form of compensation to this man. When you complete your XpressPass you agree to the terms of the cruise contract. A well traveled person would know that for approx $150+ Travel Insurance was easily available. As he is disabled it would have made complete sense to also have medical evac insurance as well as cx for any reason. Yes it would have added $$ to the overall cost but all of this incident would have been taken care of. Bottom line- its his actions/inactions that caused the problem. So sorry but no sympathy for him. My sympathy lies with people who are HC/diabled who want to cruise and who know their limitations & take appropriate measures-will headlines such as this make them miss out on a wonderful form of travel?

Carole

[sasset]

I posted a link (several pages ago) to a short bio I found on this guy online. He's been in a wheelchair for about 30 years. He has travelled extensivley (four continents) competing in marathons raising money for MS.

 

I know how I think. I was fine lasttime I went, I will be fine this time. Maybe that's what he thought too.

 

Although we have no facts of any kind, he was apparently fine for the first couple of days before whatever caused him to be removed from the ship.

[woodofpine]

You cannot "force" someone to get a nurse and charge it to their credit card without their permission, whether he got it reversed or not.

 

You have a credit card authorization on file for services rendered. You document the rendering of requested services. It's not rocket science. Will there be a billing dispute - probably. [but credit card issuers are far more vendor friendly and reluctant to reverse charges than they were a decade or two ago - especially with large vendors...] Is that a better economic result than this... almost certainly.

[rebeccalouiseagain]

Good point about cruise insurance. When I was 7 months pregnant I was allowed to cruise if I purchased insurance that would pay for my being airlifted off the ship. They made an exception for me because at the time I was not aware that I wasn't allowed to cruise that far along in my pregnancy (its in fine print how far along you can be) So the pregnancy was a pre-existing condition but if I had to be taken to a hospital the insurance I purchased would cover this cost. The insurance back in 2000 was $ 250. You do have to check what is and is not covered- very true.

 

And this is a very common occurance. A pregnant (first trimester miscarriage) woman was airlifted on that cruise. They only airlifted her and her husband had to stay onboard. She was alone in Vancouver until he could make arrangements at the next port to fly there. So that's another thing.. if someone you love is airlifted, you aren't just going to be able to tag along.

[kitkat9438]

You have a credit card authorization on file for services rendered. You document the rendering of requested services. It's not rocket science. Will there be a billing dispute - probably. [but credit card issuers are far more vendor friendly and reluctant to reverse charges than they were a decade or two ago - especially with large vendors...] Is that a better economic result than this... almost certainly.

 

You are right and you stated it right there. REQUESTED services. If he had requested the service or "authorized" the services of a nurse, then yes it is okay to charge that to his credit card. The company cannot go get him a nurse and charge it to his credit card without his permission.

 

It probably would have been a better economic result if he had just gotten the nurse, but then he would not have this lawsuit and you would not be arguing on his behalf.

[PS90]

You are right and you stated it right there. REQUESTED services. If he had requested the service or "authorized" the services of a nurse, then yes it is okay to charge that to his credit card. The company cannot go get him a nurse and charge it to his credit card without his permission.

 

It probably would have been a better economic result if he had just gotten the nurse, but then he would not have this lawsuit and you would not be arguing on his behalf.

 

Agreed. No one, not even the doctor on the ship, can force any kind of medical treatment on anyone. This includes an assistant to aid a disabled person. It is completely acceptable for any medical establishment to offer the standard of care, and then document the patient's refusal of such in the medical record. That is how every hospital in the world (okay, in the US, at least) manages these situations. We do it all the time.

[woodofpine]

"Requested" requested...

 

I think it is pretty clear that he did request the services; he complained that they weren't provided... (free) The line bears some responsibility for its own problem for simply not providing them - then charging. The line drove the issue of pre-approval of specific charges that in large measure exacerbated the problem. Now they get to pay their attorneys rather than be crafty (very possibly getting their money; how many charge disputes has CC heard of - its never the pax with the $$) and at worst absorbing some onboard charges.

 

I think this guy created his problem to a great degree, and I think X created ITS problem to a great degree. Having dealt with X customer rel onboard in problem solving, I can attest to their arm folded closed mindedness. The middle and upper tier are very good at 'No' even when 'Yes' is not just do-able but a better result for the line.

 

The guy was requesting ALF services (plus)... that's what he wanted and requested.

 

'Medical services' are provided all the time to people that don't formally 'request' them and have payment issues. ER's everywhere are processing those folks (unconscious, impaired, or otherwise) as we speak. The guy requested services and the line had a card authorization. Give the guy the assistance he requested, charge him, and let him join the cadre of folks claiming that (disputed) charges appeared on their card. OMG - that's never happened!

[rebeccalouiseagain]

My grandmother had a private nurse and it is $11.00 per hour at minimum and the clock ticks 24 hours a day. So it would have been at least $2000 for a nurse plus the cost of her transportation to and from the ship, which might have been $ 1500 at the last minute. So this is perhaps why he didn't go that route.

[Kellie Poodle]

Here is the link to the cruiser's lawyer's interview (the lawyer is blind):

 

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/oakland_county/disabled-man-gets-kicked-off-a-nude-cruise-in-guadalupe-just-4-days-into-the-10-day-trip

 

 

Reading this, it appears that the toilet being too low was the problem.

 

If the gentleman or his travel agent had completed the special needs form prior to boarding, the cruise line would have provided a riser for the toilet.

 

Is the cruise line supposed to read his mind?

[woodofpine]

Reading this, it appears that the toilet being too low was the problem.

 

If the gentleman or his travel agent had completed the special needs form prior to boarding, the cruise line would have provided a riser for the toilet.

 

Is the cruise line supposed to read his mind?

 

Hey, we'll never know... If what you relate is accurate, then why not just get him a freakin' potty riser?? (oh I know... they ran out... blah blah blah... They could MANUFACTURE him one with what they've got down in engineering...) But I can readily see guest rel managers getting into a 'No... No... No. You didn't provide the form. We don't have to. Pay us. PAY US! GO-O!!!' mentality. As I've said, I like X - but I've seen mid-management's goodwill wrecking ball of aggressive lethargy first hand. It's a stark contrast to the front line's generally 'above and beyond, can do' disposition.

 

So - now PR and legal gets to sweep up the mess. One things for sure, what's said here about it hardly matters.

[kitkat9438]

"Requested" requested...

 

I think it is pretty clear that he did request the services; he complained that they weren't provided... (free) The line bears some responsibility for its own problem for simply not providing them - then charging. The line drove the issue of pre-approval of specific charges that in large measure exacerbated the problem. Now they get to pay their attorneys rather than be crafty (very possibly getting their money; how many charge disputes has CC heard of - its never the pax with the $$) and at worst absorbing some onboard charges.

 

I think this guy created his problem to a great degree, and I think X created ITS problem to a great degree. Having dealt with X customer rel onboard in problem solving, I can attest to their arm folded closed mindedness. The middle and upper tier are very good at 'No' even when 'Yes' is not just do-able but a better result for the line.

 

The guy was requesting ALF services (plus)... that's what he wanted and requested.

 

'Medical services' are provided all the time to people that don't formally 'request' them and have payment issues. ER's everywhere are processing those folks (unconscious, impaired, or otherwise) as we speak. The guy requested services and the line had a card authorization. Give the guy the assistance he requested, charge him, and let him join the cadre of folks claiming that (disputed) charges appeared on their card. OMG - that's never happened!

 

Uh, we weren't debating that he was requesting help from Celebrity's crew members to meet his personal care. We were talking about him "requesting" a nurse because you are saying that Celebrity should have just got the nurse without his permission by being "crafty to get their money" and then charging his credit card and then worry about whether he would dispute the charges later. I think we can agree that this man was not unconscious or otherwise and perfectly able to make the decision on whether or not to hire a nurse, which is what he did. He refused and Celebrity cannot go against those wishes and go behind his back charging his card without permission just to avoid having to disembark him from the cruise ship.

 

I think I'll just wait and see what Dan has to say from his interviews on all of this. You aren't going to convince me, and I doubt anyone else, that it's okay to use someone's onboard account and credit card to charge a private duty nurse to take care of someone without their permission.

 

Is it just a coincidence that the original OP is now silent and you have taken up the defense of the man in question? Are you or are you not associated with the OP, the man in question or his attorney? Curious minds want to know because these arguments sure sound familiar.

[sasset]

It's sad, but this happens so often on this board:

 

Someone posts something negative about Celebrity, or in this case just a link to a story.

Someone else searches all of the original poster's previous postings looking for some sort of an agenda.

Then the pile on begins. People start posting conclusions without any firsthand knowledge, or for that matter any facts, as to the intent of the original poster, and in this case Mr. Keskeny, until a conspiracy theory takes over.

 

Any calls for restraint are poo-pooed as being that of a troll.

 

I could go on, but I won't.

[ramman]

It's sad, but this happens so often on this board:

 

Someone posts something negative about Celebrity, or in this case just a link to a story.

Someone else searches all of the original poster's previous postings looking for some sort of an agenda.

Then the pile on begins. People start posting conclusions without any firsthand knowledge, or for that matter any facts, as to the intent of the original poster, and in this case Mr. Keskeny, until a conspiracy theory takes over.

 

Any calls for restraint are poo-pooed as being that of a troll.

 

I could go on, but I won't.

 

:) beat me to the send button........373 posts now, speculating on motives, making judgements, proposing alternate actions and solutions to the issue, all with no first hand facts of the situation. Seems to me that there are way to many arm-chair lawyers out there. :D

[PS90]

'Medical services' are provided all the time to people that don't formally 'request' them and have payment issues. ER's everywhere are processing those folks (unconscious, impaired, or otherwise) as we speak. The guy requested services and the line had a card authorization. Give the guy the assistance he requested, charge him, and let him join the cadre of folks claiming that (disputed) charges appeared on their card. OMG - that's never happened!

 

The first part of your comment is completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Emergency services are provided to people unable to make conscious/rational decisions in life-threatening situations. In no way does that apply here.

 

Also, according to the second article by Mr. Wolffe and the CC article, Mr. Keskeny declined the assistant service due to the cost. Are you SERIOUSLY implying that Celebrity should have just charged his onboard account anyway, after his refusal to pay? Obviously, you don't run a business...