Celebrity dumps disabled man on island.

[dzcruisers]

On a lighter note...............when I saw the title of the thread, I pictured someone in a wheel chair being wheeled off the ship and dumped out of their wheelchair on Gilligan's Island. It's all a matter of perception.

[PS90]

:) 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

 

So?

 

Are you going to tell me that if any kind of similarly-relevant story was posted on ANY other forum on the web, the response would be completely different? Seriously?

[ramman]

So?

 

Are you going to tell me that if any kind of similarly-relevant story was posted on ANY other forum on the web, the response would be completely different? Seriously?

 

and yet another response challenging a simple statement...get a life!!!

[PS90]

and yet another response challenging a simple statement...get a life!!!

 

Okay, you're right. Of course your opinion, and yourself, are much better than I am. I'll go work on that life I'm obviously missing out on. Bye.

[ramman]

Okay, you're right. Of course your opinion, and yourself, are much better than I am. I'll go work on that life I'm obviously missing out on. Bye.

 

guilty, of expressing my opinion by saying "seems to me that there are too many to many arm-chair lawyers out there". I have made absolutely no pretense of being better than anyone.

[bananavan]

The original post was placed on the board by someone who had a special interest in generating publicity for the story. He accomplished that. When he posted the story he is the one who did not present all the facts and assumed that we would express outrage at Celebrity for being so heartless. For the majority of the posters common sense responses resulted.

I do not think that those who respond are playing armchair attorneys, some are practicing ones and realize that this case, as presented by the original poster, has no merit. It appears to be, at best, a nuisance case brought with the hope of a financial settlement.

[Dan Askin]

Hi everyone,

 

Just posted an update on the story following interviews with Mr. Keskeny, his attorney, the line, ADA experts:

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4449

 

There are still numerous unanswered questions -- like precisely what Celebrity means when they say the Sky Suite is ADA compliant -- but at this point, the line has said that it has no further comment. There are lawyers involved now, so I suppose they'll do their talking during 1) binding arbitration (the contractual dispute relating to the cruise cost, $4,000-plus, and the cost of transportation home, $1,500) and 2) if there is a separate ADA compliance lawsuit that results from the whole ordeal. Keskeny's attorney, Richard Bernstein, is adamant that there will be.

 

If anyone has any questions, I'll do my best to answer them. I'm by no means an expert in ADA legalese -- and how the ADA applies to foreign-flagged vessels generally, and to this incident specifically -- but I can certainly reach out to experts if need be. It's an understatement to say that the ADA 'standards,' 'guidelines' and the legal application and enforcement thereof (by the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation) is ... complicated.

[dzcruisers]

Hi everyone,

 

Just posted an update on the story following interviews with Mr. Keskeny, his attorney, the line, ADA experts:

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4449

 

There are still numerous unanswered questions -- like precisely what Celebrity means when they say the Sky Suite is ADA compliant -- but at this point, the line has said that it has no further comment. There are lawyers involved now, so I suppose they'll do their talking during 1) binding arbitration (the contractual dispute relating to the cruise cost, $4,000-plus, and the cost of transportation home, $1,500) and 2) if there is a separate ADA compliance lawsuit that results from the whole ordeal. Keskeny's attorney, Richard Bernstein, is adamant that there will be.

 

If anyone has any questions, I'll do my best to answer them. I'm by no means an expert in ADA legalese -- and how the ADA applies to foreign-flagged vessels generally, and to this incident specifically -- but I can certainly reach out to experts if need be. It's an understatement to say that the ADA 'standards,' 'guidelines' and the legal application and enforcement thereof (by the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation) is ... complicated.

 

Has anyone ascertained whether there is a lip going into that bathroom?

[Dan Askin]

Has anyone ascertained whether there is a lip going into that bathroom?

 

Celebrity denied there was a lip situated by the entrance to the bathroom. Mr. Keskeny clarified his statements and said it was a slight carpeted rise that was difficult, but not impossible, to surmount (He said he was able to get into the bathroom, with difficulty, on his own). Of course, when you're in a wheelchair, even a slight incline can pose an issue (depending on upper body strength), but he ultimately called the "lip" a "low priority issue." The bed and the toilet were at the crux of the matter.

[CaroleLee]

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...

 

Interesting point. The crusie line requested/suggested that he hire a pvt duty> He REFUSED to do this due to COST. Yet his wife cx and he had already paid in full so according to his accounting he was negative $2000.00 cruise fare for wife's ticket. Why is now crying too much$$. He obviously wasn't concerned about losing $2000.00. Anyone else out ther smell a set=up?

Carole

[CaroleLee]

Has anyone ascertained whether there is a lip going into that bathroom?

 

So now they are going to file a lawsuit as well as an arbitration suit. Interesting.

I just checked the CC boards for special needs-no mention of this situation on it.

Carole

[dzcruisers]

Celebrity denied there was a lip situated by the entrance to the bathroom. Mr. Keskeny clarified his statements and said it was a slight carpeted rise that was difficult, but not impossible, to surmount (He said he was able to get into the bathroom, with difficulty, on his own). Of course, when you're in a wheelchair, even a slight incline can pose an issue (depending on upper body strength), but he ultimately called the "lip" a "low priority issue." The bed and the toilet were at the crux of the matter.

I am "assuming" that the bedroom is carpeted and the bathroom is not.

Would he not be going down into the bathroom however slightly? I would think going down would be easy but I've never been in a wheel chair for a long period, just six weeks. Just thinking about how this all started and his initial complaint.

[Dan Askin]

I am "assuming" that the bedroom is carpeted and the bathroom is not.

Would he not be going down into the bathroom however slightly? I would think going down would be easy but I've never been in a wheel chair for a long period, just six weeks. Just thinking about how this all started and his initial complaint.

 

The slope was up into the bathroom -- he said he had no issue exiting the bathroom on the downward slope.

[dzcruisers]

The slope was up into the bathroom -- he said he had no issue exiting the bathroom on the downward slope.

 

Thank you!

[YOW]

Dan, thanks for continuing to work on this story and keeping us informed.

 

There are multiple sides to this case, and the truth is somewhere in between. He might not admit it now, with emotions flaring, but I think if Mr. Keskeny had a chance to do it all over, he'd take the prudent route and cancel the cruise (we can speculate about what insurance had been purchased and what should have been). And if Celebrity could get a do-over, they'd be more officious in getting the special needs paperwork filled out and scrutinised. The latter may very well end up being a company or industry-wide lesson going forward.

[PS90]

Hi everyone,

 

Just posted an update on the story following interviews with Mr. Keskeny, his attorney, the line, ADA experts:

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4449

 

There are still numerous unanswered questions -- like precisely what Celebrity means when they say the Sky Suite is ADA compliant -- but at this point, the line has said that it has no further comment. There are lawyers involved now, so I suppose they'll do their talking during 1) binding arbitration (the contractual dispute relating to the cruise cost, $4,000-plus, and the cost of transportation home, $1,500) and 2) if there is a separate ADA compliance lawsuit that results from the whole ordeal. Keskeny's attorney, Richard Bernstein, is adamant that there will be.

 

If anyone has any questions, I'll do my best to answer them. I'm by no means an expert in ADA legalese -- and how the ADA applies to foreign-flagged vessels generally, and to this incident specifically -- but I can certainly reach out to experts if need be. It's an understatement to say that the ADA 'standards,' 'guidelines' and the legal application and enforcement thereof (by the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation) is ... complicated.

 

Thanks a lot for the continuing updates, Dan. I really have no dog in this fight, just a morbid fascination with these kinds of ethical issues, I guess. (I'm not even sure "ethical" is the right word)

 

Anyway, thanks again.

[wolfganghowell]

The bed and the toilet were at the crux of the matter.

 

Actually, I disagree. While I believe accommodations should be made for the disabled, I also believe common sense should enter into it. Someone who is not self sufficient should not travel alone. THAT is the crux of the matter. Mr Keskeny lacked proper judgement based on what I've read and should not have expected that "good samaritans" and a cruise butler should be on call to assist him in personal and private matters. Part of being an adult is making choices and accepting that we simply can't "do it all, all the time." He had every right to be on the cruise provided that he was self sufficient. He wasn't. I would think with his medical condition, he had travel insurance. Once his wife cancelled, he would have been able to cancel with the proper insurance or he could have found a companion. I have great sympathy for the challenges of MS and any physical ailments but evidently it was never brought to the attention of the charter company he booked with or Celebrity that there were serious special needs at play. And I dearly love how the lawyer is going after Celebrity and not the charter company! Deeper pockets perhaps?

 

I'm reminded of the story of an elderly woman who was cruising alone on the Carnival ship a few months back that went dead in the water. She was in no medical condition to be alone and without electricity was in a dangerous situation. Why in the world would ANYONE travel alone if they had ANY kind of serious medical or physical issue? That is not a rational decision ever, I don't care how "independent" you are.

 

Cruise ships are one of the safest vacations going but in a worst case scenario, I cannot imagine how anyone that is not 100% self sufficient and mobile can even think of going on one alone. It's not fair to the staff, to the fellow passengers or to their family and friends who are left at home to worry.

[JREwing]

My wife has MS. We have cruised before.

She would never take a cruise alone. Anyone with MS, regardless how bad it is should never take a cruise by themselves. This guy should have known better.

The cruise line owes him nothing.

[Dan Askin]

Actually, I disagree. While I believe accommodations should be made for the disabled, I also believe common sense should enter into it. Someone who is not self sufficient should not travel alone. THAT is the crux of the matter. Mr Keskeny lacked proper judgement based on what I've read and should not have expected that "good samaritans" and a cruise butler should be on call to assist him in personal and private matters. Part of being an adult is making choices and accepting that we simply can't "do it all, all the time." He had every right to be on the cruise provided that he was self sufficient. He wasn't. I would think with his medical condition, he had travel insurance. Once his wife cancelled, he would have been able to cancel with the proper insurance or he could have found a companion. I have great sympathy for the challenges of MS and any physical ailments but evidently it was never brought to the attention of the charter company he booked with or Celebrity that there were serious special needs at play. And I dearly love how the lawyer is going after Celebrity and not the charter company! Deeper pockets perhaps?

 

I'm reminded of the story of an elderly woman who was cruising alone on the Carnival ship a few months back that went dead in the water. She was in no medical condition to be alone and without electricity was in a dangerous situation. Why in the world would ANYONE travel alone if they had ANY kind of serious medical or physical issue? That is not a rational decision ever, I don't care how "independent" you are.

 

Cruise ships are one of the safest vacations going but in a worst case scenario, I cannot imagine how anyone that is not 100% self sufficient and mobile can even think of going on one alone. It's not fair to the staff, to the fellow passengers or to their family and friends who are left at home to worry.

 

Thanks for your comment, Wolfgang, but I should clarify: "Cruise of the matter for Mr. Keskeny." (I'm trying to stay out of the opinion equation!) He argued that the serious issues -- toilet, bed -- only arose because the cabin was not ADA compliant. I was simply noting that Keskeny said the "lip" was a "lower priority issue."

[cnote100]

:) 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

 

Isn't that partly what these boards are for? People are just expressing their opinions and trying to imagine how they might deal with the situation if they were there - is there anyhting wrong with that?

 

Yes, on this board there are arm-chair lawyers, blind lawyers, litigation lawyers and others - what's your point?

 

IMO, the OP did have a undisclosed motive. I came to this opinion through more than speculation - yes, I admit, I researched the OP. And through this I discovered 1) his real name, 2) what law school he went to, 3) his fathers name; 4) how many disability lawsuits he had previously been involved in - 2; 5) his attorney in at least one of those lawsuits - Bernstein; 6) non-litigation matters in which he had some involvment with Bernstein - at least one; and few other things.

 

I applaud the OP for his efforts in attempting rights and prviliges for the disabled and fighting against those who may overlook the disabled. I do however, disagree with him avoiding disclosing the fact that he essentially has a horse in this race.

 

As for me, I'm an actual lawyer acting as arm-chair lawyer on this thread. I can see the arguments from serveral points-of-view, but not all. And yes, I also believe we are all essentially wasting our time on here, but guess what, it's kind of fun. And without this thread and this board we would have not learned such valuable things as:

 

1) ADA compliant might not really mean fully accessible

2) Nude cruisers bring, use towels when they sit in public areas of the ship

3) Many disabled passengers use and enjoy Celebrity, even if it's not perfect

4) That there are many blind attorneys out there

 

And I'm sure many other things. I people just wanted information about their cruises they could go any number of places for checklists and FAQ's; but we want little more. So we come here to talk, comment, criticize, discuss.

 

If we could only dicuss that which we have first hand knowledge of - things would get way boring - I mean - how would teachers teach?

[dzcruisers]

Thanks for your comment, Wolfgang, but I should clarify: "Cruise of the matter for Mr. Keskeny." (I'm trying to stay out of the opinion equation!) He argued that the serious issues -- toilet, bed -- only arose because the cabin was not ADA compliant. I was simply noting that Keskeny said the "lip" was a "lower priority issue."

 

In the first article the lip and the butler not picking him up off the floor seemed to be his biggest complaints. See the first post. It has spiraled since then.

[Dan Askin]

In the first article the lip and the butler not picking him up off the floor seemed to be his biggest complaints. See the first post. It has spiraled since then.

 

Since folks are giving us lip about the lip (joke courtesy of Managing Editor John Deiner), we've reinstated lip-related information, which we included in the first piece.

 

'According to the Oakland Press story, a "non-ADA-compliant lip" at the entrance of his cabin bathroom also posed problems for Keskeny. When he asked the butler to help him get his wheelchair over lip, the butler refused. Royal Caribbean spokeswoman Cynthia Martinez told us there was no "lip" to go into the bathroom in Keskeny's suite. Keskeny clarified the "lip" description to Cruise Critic, calling it a slight rise in the carpet -- which he was able to surmount with difficulty -- and more of a "low priority" problem.'

[wanderlust402]

The bed and the toilet were at the crux of the matter.

 

From the article:

In order to call a cabin "ADA Compliant," it must meet the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, which aren't mandatory at this time for foreign-flagged vessels like Celebrity Century.

 

It also seems to me that public accomodations that renovated are required to meet the ADA code at the time of the renovation. Therefore, if Century met the standards as of 2006, I think they would be compliant.

 

I would also imagine that Oasis and Alure of the Seas as well as Celebrity Eclipse are subject to the latest regulations as they are new ships.

[criticalrn2u]

The man had a plan, he knows he needs help and the staff should never have to help with some of the needs he has (toileting, dressing and getting out of bed) Those are jobs of trained people.

Besides all that what the heck was he doing leaving his ill wife anyway?

[alexkrn46]

Dan,

 

My understanding is Mr. Kenskney did not notify the cruise line of his disability or fill out the form that would have requested a raised toilet seat and bed. You his issues are the toilet and the the bed, is requesting that all rooms meet his special needs ? Every disabled person has differing needs, personally I would not want to travel on a ship that modeled after a hospital room.

 

Second, every passenger on a cruise is on vacation, in my opinion he has gall to expect other passengers to give up time to attend to his "predictable" personal needs. Why is he not suing the passenger who let him fall in the bathroom ? That passenger assumed the responsibility to assist him in the bathroom and this Good Samaritan let him fall.

 

Last, why would Mr. Kenskney think a Butler attend to his Bathroom needs.

 

I would have more respect for this case, if Mr. Kenskney enter his cabin on embarkation, noted that he could not care for himself his inability to get into the bathroom and ask for a refund.