Celebrity dumps disabled man on island.

[woodofpine]

...a major issue in the papers, in the courts, and especially on this forum.

 

Well I agree with the "on this forum" part, but otherwise this hasn't exactly bumped Libya and the government finance off the front page.

 

But... If Celebrity has suffered such a horrendous legal and public relations nightmare as is proposed, 'reasonable accommodation' issues aside, don't you think that on board managers might have done SOMETHING different to avert this outcome. I mean they were able to accommodate the guy for a couple of days... Doing so a few days more would've sunk the ship?

 

Oh, I know those managers on board just had no discretion whatsoever... They were forced to put him ashore! They're perfect and perfectly correct...

[Dale]

I've checked the OP's posts and another poster has pointed out that the OP did not state they are a law student, so Please do Not speak for detroitcruiser, the OP, and let the OP respond, if they will. The OP has been asked more than a few times what their involvement is in this issue since this has become a major issue in the papers, in the courts, and especially on this forum. I believe it would be beneficial to understand the role the OP plays in this beyond being just another poster, such as we are.

 

So please let the OP respond, if the OP would please do so. I've learned very early on this forum to not speak for others, having done so in error. And just for clarification, Law Students can be involved in active cases also.

 

Den

 

According to your post you say and claim that, detroitcruiser, never made the following post. If he or she didn’t make it who did? I know I only attended public school, but I did pass reading.

 

Let me be as clear as humanly possible. I am not a practicing attorney nor have I ever claimed to be -- I am a law student, I am also legally blind, and have cruised on Celebrity.

[etoile]

According to your post you say and claim that, detroitcruiser, never made the following post. If he or she didn’t make it who did? I know I only attended public school, but I did pass reading.

 

You beat me to it!

 

I'm terribly amused by the accusations that I was putting words in anyone's mouth. I'm just quoting what I read several pages ago. "Don't speak for others" is certainly good policy, but I wasn't. An apology would be nice but I don't expect one. Didn't get one for being accused of claiming myself a scooter expert either, when I never did so.

 

Why is this thread so full of accusations? People accusing the OP of being involved in the case, people accusing me of making things up...I have always tried to be factual in my posts and yet things get so twisted. :(

 

BTW, remember when reading quotes...yes they can be altered, but the little ">" arrow will take you back to the original quoted post.

[boo214]

Well I agree with the "on this forum" part, but otherwise this hasn't exactly bumped Libya and the government finance off the front page.

 

But... If Celebrity has suffered such a horrendous legal and public relations nightmare as is proposed, 'reasonable accommodation' issues aside, don't you think that on board managers might have done SOMETHING different to avert this outcome. I mean they were able to accommodate the guy for a couple of days... Doing so a few days more would've sunk the ship?

 

Oh, I know those managers on board just had no discretion whatsoever... They were forced to put him ashore! They're perfect and perfectly correct...

they did everything they could i think. they offered to get him a nurse and play musical cabins to assure that said nurse would be close to him, but he refused. so they disembarked him feeling that it was in his best interest.

[Denny01]

You beat me to it!

 

I'm terribly amused by the accusations that I was putting words in anyone's mouth. I'm just quoting what I read several pages ago. "Don't speak for others" is certainly good policy, but I wasn't. An apology would be nice but I don't expect one. Didn't get one for being accused of claiming myself a scooter expert either, when I never did so.

 

Why is this thread so full of accusations? People accusing the OP of being involved in the case, people accusing me of making things up...I have always tried to be factual in my posts and yet things get so twisted. :(

 

BTW, remember when reading quotes...yes they can be altered, but the little ">" arrow will take you back to the original quoted post.

I do apologize. And you are right on. I jumped in way too quickly. In my defense, I'm not accusing the OP of anything, but was interested in why the high interest...if it was more professional than personal. And if the OP was directly involved, that isn't an accusation or shows they are wrong.

 

You were factual and I did 'lecture' you when I am the one needing the lecture about reading properly.

 

I think I'll stick to talking about cruising!

 

Den

[etoile]

I do apologize. And you are right on. I jumped in way too quickly. In my defense, I'm not accusing the OP of anything, but was interested in why the high interest...if it was more professional than personal. And if the OP was directly involved, that isn't an accusation or shows they are wrong.

 

You were factual and I did 'lecture' you when I am the one needing the lecture about reading properly.

 

I think I'll stick to talking about cruising!

 

Den

Thank you so much. This makes me so happy to read. The thread haws been full of accusations though, many people have been outright rude to the OP! I really appreciate your apology. And, to be fair, this thread is REALLY long so I can understand why a short post such as that one was missed!

[Denny01]

Thank you so much. This makes me so happy to read. The thread haws been full of accusations though, many people have been outright rude to the OP! I really appreciate your apology. And, to be fair, this thread is REALLY long so I can understand why a short post such as that one was missed!

Thanks for giving me an excuse, but if I'm going to disagree with someone, I should make sure I'm right, and I didn't. This forum is very helpful, but when we get into these type of discussions, since posts don't carry inflections and so on, things can come across as much more accusatory and rigid then meant.....but then many posts are meant to be accusatory and so on...so it can be tricky and really defeats what the real point of the forum is.

 

At least we aren't trashing each other over what we wear to dinner!

 

Den

[woodofpine]

they did everything they could i think. they offered to get him a nurse and play musical cabins to assure that said nurse would be close to him, but he refused. so they disembarked him feeling that it was in his best interest.

 

I'm sure disembarking a disabled guy in a foreign port to fend for himself (because they'd determined he couldn't care for himself) was in his 'best interest';)

 

It sort of gets down to perspectives... I appreciate your caveat "i think" - because none of us here actually know what happened. All we've got is corporate 'spin doctoring' vs. 'disbled activist spin doctoring'.

 

But - simplifying the bowlegged one's pitch... The guy was having problems with 'allegedly' non-ADA compliant fixtures/furnishings. So X offered to either, 1) sell him a nurse ($$$), or 2) put him ashore (:eek:). Whereas the wheeler says, get me ADA compliant fixtures, or transfer assistance as 'reasonable accomodation' (free).

 

What the level of his transfer or other issues were - is factual, and what the nature of the fixtures issues were is factual; thus, its pure speculation on the part of posters here (accepting that both sides have credibility issues because of self-interest). Any 'conclusions reached' here by filling in the blanks speculatively is g.i.g.o.

 

But - if X suffers fairly high bad press, publicity, and legal expense, then it was because they demanded to put the payment issue first (X's self interest) rather than provide the necessary assistance - and haggle or fight over the charges later.

 

I hope they found the approximately $8k 'worth it' for what they've gotten out of it...:rolleyes: Sounds like a crummy business decision to me.

 

(Remember also - the '$8k' is not money out of pocket either for the line, its simply potential retail-income chargeable [200hrs x $40 nurse]; presumably the nurse was on board and expensed into the voyage anyways...)

 

As posited earlier, X ought to thank their stars the guy wasn't injured on Gaudeloupe. I think what the line might be seeing is that its real nice to have fine print in the contract, and its real nice to have loyal passengers that will defend you adamently, but there's a point where maybe 'just maybe' the tangible and intangible expenses of putting a disabled guy ashore under these circumstances bite you in the butt (and far exceed whatever $$ the infirmary and purser were trying to extract on board).

[graphicguy]

they did everything they could i think. they offered to get him a nurse and play musical cabins to assure that said nurse would be close to him, but he refused. so they disembarked him feeling that it was in his best interest.

 

 

Good points. Reading through this whole thing, I still believe this gentleman needed some sort of medical supervision in order to take this cruise. Clearly, Celebrity believed he was a danger to either himself, or others (probably both) by being on board in his condition.

 

I don't know what his motivation was. It sounds like he was frustrated regarding his condition (understandably). And, the ship's medical and management staff was just as frustrated that they couldn't help him to his satisfaction.

 

Filing some sort of lawsuit isn't going to help anyone. I know of more than one family who is charged with caring for someone who's disabled, but they enjoy cruising. They either find a professional to accompany them. Or, they find someone who is qualified to oversee their disabled loved one while they are away.

 

This just needs to be chalked up as one of those situations where there are no winners here. Sometimes that happens. This is one of them.

 

I'm certain Celebrity wished they could have made him happy.

[kitkat9438]

I'm sure disembarking a disabled guy in a foreign port to fend for himself (because they'd determined he couldn't care for himself) was in his 'best interest';)

 

It sort of gets down to perspectives... I appreciate your caveat "i think" - because none of us here actually know what happened. All we've got is corporate 'spin doctoring' vs. 'disbled activist spin doctoring'.

 

But - simplifying the bowlegged one's pitch... The guy was having problems with 'allegedly' non-ADA compliant fixtures/furnishings. So X offered to either, 1) sell him a nurse ($$$), or 2) put him ashore (:eek:). Whereas the wheeler says, get me ADA compliant fixtures, or transfer assistance as 'reasonable accomodation' (free).

 

What the level of his transfer or other issues were - is factual, and what the nature of the fixtures issues were is factual; thus, its pure speculation on the part of posters here (accepting that both sides have credibility issues because of self-interest). Any 'conclusions reached' here by filling in the blanks speculatively is g.i.g.o.

 

But - if X suffers fairly high bad press, publicity, and legal expense, then it was because they demanded to put the payment issue first (X's self interest) rather than provide the necessary assistance - and haggle or fight over the charges later.

 

I hope they found the approximately $8k 'worth it' for what they've gotten out of it...:rolleyes: Sounds like a crummy business decision to me.

 

(Remember also - the '$8k' is not money out of pocket either for the line, its simply potential retail-income chargeable [200hrs x $40 nurse]; presumably the nurse was on board and expensed into the voyage anyways...)

 

As posited earlier, X ought to thank their stars the guy wasn't injured on Gaudeloupe. I think what the line might be seeing is that its real nice to have fine print in the contract, and its real nice to have loyal passengers that will defend you adamently, but there's a point where maybe 'just maybe' the tangible and intangible expenses of putting a disabled guy ashore under these circumstances bite you in the butt (and far exceed whatever $$ the infirmary and purser were trying to extract on board).

 

I notice you never answered two of the questions I asked you:

 

1. What interest do you have in this story, are you affiliated with the OP, Mr. Keskeny or his attorney?

 

2. Would you have sent your mother who was disabled on a cruise by herself "expecting" the cruise line to take care of her, or just charge a nurse to her credit card if she couldn't??

 

While the ship may have had a "nurse" onboard, it was not a private duty nurse and one would have to be flown in to meet the ship at port. Again, no business in their right mind is going to charge a nurse or any other charge on your credit card, unless you have given them specific permission to do so. You keep throwing around how Celebrity should have just charged this guy's card and then worried about whether he would dispute the charges later, or give him a nurse for "free" as you put it.

 

Any conclusions that have been made here on this forum stem from the different articles and different stories that keep evolving.

The stories still have holes in them and they continue to change. Whether it is the fault of Mr. Keskeny giving the interview or the interviewer that writes the article, his first article set the tone for this whole thread making allegations and assumptions that were meant to make the reader believe he was “wronged” by the big bad cruise company in an effort to gain sympathy for his cause.

 

1. He paid $4,000 for his ticket so he’d have a larger stateroom for his wheelchair and also paid extra to have a butler assigned to him to help him since he was traveling alone. (In reality he paid extra for a Sky Suite that comes with a butler (not a nurse), and costs more money than the oceanview accessible cabins that may or may not have been available, and passage for two people, not just for himself)

 

2. Keskeny, now of Pinckney, who traveled extensively during his career on behalf of the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation, made sure he’d receive extra assistance on the cruise before he bought the ticket and flew to Miami on Feb. 13 to board the ship. (How did he make sure he would get extra assistance before he bought the ticket and why would he if he bought the ticket for himself and his wife to accompany him and she backed out at the last minute due to illness???? What source did he use for this information?)

 

3. “When I went through check-in, everyone was aware I used a wheelchair because it was obvious,” he said. “Cruise line officials knew I paid for extra assistance, if needed. (Does that mean if you are in a wheelchair the cruise line is supposed to think you paid for extra assistance if needed, other than what is stated on the website, assistance getting on and off the ship?? Accessible cabins are the same cost to everyone whether you are handicapped or not, you don’t pay “extra”.)

 

4. The ship left the Miami port Monday, Feb. 14.

 

But the next morning, when he asked the butler to help him get his wheelchair over a non-compliant ADA lip going into the bathroom, the butler refused.

 

 

5. “They wouldn’t touch me,” he said. “I felt like a leper.”

 

NEW STORY: ON THE FIRST SEA DAY after initially receiving bed help from his butler, Celebrity officials told Keskeny that he could not ask staff for help. Keskeny told us that "nowhere in the literature or during my research . . . showed there'd be an issue" with asking the butler for help.

 

6. On the third day of the trip, Keskeny said he had a problem in the bathroom and slipped off the toilet.

 

“Not one of the workers would help me get back in my chair,” he said, noting fellow passengers helped him out.

 

NEW: On Day 3 of the cruise, Keskeny fell off the toilet in his cabin. He was helped back into his wheelchair by a fellow passenger who, according to Keskeny, was already in the cabin to assist him.

 

(What about the “workers” who wouldn’t help him get back in his chair and he had to have fellow “passengers” – more than one, help him?)

 

7. He then was taken to the ship’s infirmary, given a test and charged $200. (What kind of test was he given??? Was he injured in the fall??)

 

He is now claiming the toilet was too low and this is the reason he “slipped and fell” off of it. He says the original complaint of the "lip" into the bathroom is not that big of a deal. :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that he made it three days before having an issue with it and only after he fell off. Or the fact that risers were or should have been available if he had simply filled out the form as required or requested it as soon as he realized that the toilet height would be an issue. Same thing goes for the bed height.

 

The bottom line here is that he knew he would need extra assistance before he even boarded the ship stating that he paid extra for a butler to be “assigned to him”, and made sure he would have extra assistance before he bought his ticket.

 

From all I have read, it sounds to me like Mr. Keskeny assumed he could travel alone and “expect” others to help him out with his personal needs, whether it was the butler or fellow passengers. This sort of entitlement thinking and expectations are simply unreasonable. As an adult you have to be responsible for your own actions and choices and he chose to travel on his own knowing he would need help. After he fell it was apparent he needed more help than the passengers could (and should) provide. This is when an offer was made to secure a nurse to help him for the remainder of the cruise. Maybe the cost was prohibitive for that, but I agree with another poster who said he should have been able to find someone he could have flown in to help him out with all of his contacts and perhaps his wife.

 

I’m sure every person that is made to leave a cruise gets upset that he got caught breaking the rules of the contract that he signed and has to be held accountable. In this instance Celebrity should not have to be responsible for Mr. Keskeny’s personal care or liable for any injuries he would possibly sustain due to his inability to take care of himself. There’s also the possibility of another cruiser who assisted him getting injured. What if someone tryed to help lift him off a bed or toilet and throw their back out or slipped and fell, who is going to foot the bill?

[CaroleLee]

Good points. Reading through this whole thing, I still believe this gentleman needed some sort of medical supervision in order to take this cruise. Clearly, Celebrity believed he was a danger to either himself, or others (probably both) by being on board in his condition.

 

I don't know what his motivation was. It sounds like he was frustrated regarding his condition (understandably). And, the ship's medical and management staff was just as frustrated that they couldn't help him to his satisfaction.

 

Filing some sort of lawsuit isn't going to help anyone. I know of more than one family who is charged with caring for someone who's disabled, but they enjoy cruising. They either find a professional to accompany them. Or, they find someone who is qualified to oversee their disabled loved one while they are away.

 

This just needs to be chalked up as one of those situations where there are no winners here. Sometimes that happens. This is one of them.

 

I'm certain Celebrity wished they could have made him happy.

 

Agree with you. Seems as though this was a set-up or whoops" I can't take care of myself & my wife could n't sail " from the beginning and is just an attempt to garner publicity/recoup expenses. I quote from CC News on the topic 'Bernstein, who said his only initial goal was to get his client's money back via small-scale binding arbitration, told Cruise Critic that he's now so incensed at how Keskey was treated he's going to file a full-fledged lawsuit against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. over fleetwide ADA compliance issues."

1. Kelsey flew (at his expense we are told) his lawyer to Miami.

2.Lawyer was going to arbitration re reimbursement for the cruise & return airfare but NOW is INCENSED.Hence he is suing (bigger $$ from a bigger co. than the Bare cruise organizers)

3. Question- when you call your lawyer & have them fly to you to file a suit would you not discuss the case before they got on a plane?

4.If you are a world traveler/seasoned traveler or NEWBIE would a reasonable person read the materials assciated with their cruise? Hence they would complete the appropriate paperwork.

5.ADA accessable/ADA compliant is a multifaceted problem. It is an ACT which is open to multiple interpretations ( lawyers again).

6.Ship's medical team are contracted not employees of the line. They charge for their services. Personally not sure private insurance would cover charges (policy dependent) T

The MD & RN would not be"on call " 7/24 to lift, bathe, toilet Mr. Kelsey-that is aide work.

 

Again,as I & others have said previously, the responsibilty is the pax to read & understand what is and what is not included on a cruise, as well as to be realistic regarding their ADL abilities.

Carole

[A Sixth?]

New article on CRUISE LAW NEWS regarding this event:

 

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2011/04/articles/special-needs-1/celebrity-cruises-and-disabled-passenger-exchange-threats-are-celebritys-cruise-ships-ada-compliant/

 

 

There really is a web site for everything. :p

[RDC1]

I'm sure disembarking a disabled guy in a foreign port to fend for himself (because they'd determined he couldn't care for himself) was in his 'best interest';)

 

It sort of gets down to perspectives... I appreciate your caveat "i think" - because none of us here actually know what happened. All we've got is corporate 'spin doctoring' vs. 'disbled activist spin doctoring'.

 

But - simplifying the bowlegged one's pitch... The guy was having problems with 'allegedly' non-ADA compliant fixtures/furnishings. So X offered to either, 1) sell him a nurse ($$$), or 2) put him ashore (:eek:). Whereas the wheeler says, get me ADA compliant fixtures, or transfer assistance as 'reasonable accomodation' (free).

 

What the level of his transfer or other issues were - is factual, and what the nature of the fixtures issues were is factual; thus, its pure speculation on the part of posters here (accepting that both sides have credibility issues because of self-interest). Any 'conclusions reached' here by filling in the blanks speculatively is g.i.g.o.

 

But - if X suffers fairly high bad press, publicity, and legal expense, then it was because they demanded to put the payment issue first (X's self interest) rather than provide the necessary assistance - and haggle or fight over the charges later.

 

I hope they found the approximately $8k 'worth it' for what they've gotten out of it...:rolleyes: Sounds like a crummy business decision to me.

 

(Remember also - the '$8k' is not money out of pocket either for the line, its simply potential retail-income chargeable [200hrs x $40 nurse]; presumably the nurse was on board and expensed into the voyage anyways...)

 

As posited earlier, X ought to thank their stars the guy wasn't injured on Gaudeloupe. I think what the line might be seeing is that its real nice to have fine print in the contract, and its real nice to have loyal passengers that will defend you adamently, but there's a point where maybe 'just maybe' the tangible and intangible expenses of putting a disabled guy ashore under these circumstances bite you in the butt (and far exceed whatever $$ the infirmary and purser were trying to extract on board).

 

 

You are missing one key point. The cruise contract requires that if someone requires assistence then they must be accompanied. The issue here is that the gentlement in question clearly required assistence, and therefore was not in accordance with the cruise contract. He therefore had the option of either hiring someone to provide assistence and return to being in compliance or to depart. He obviously chose not to be in complaince with the contract.

[CaroleLee]

You are missing one key point. The cruise contract requires that if someone requires assistence then they must be accompanied. The issue here is that the gentlement in question clearly required assistence, and therefore was not in accordance with the cruise contract. He therefore had the option of either hiring someone to provide assistence and return to being in compliance or to depart. He obviously chose not to be in complaince with the contract.

 

Correct: He CHOSE. He must live the the consequences of his actions. Bottom line he is responsible . As an 'activist" he wants to be treated not as HC/disabled-pick adj. not rather as normal/ordinary. However he admits that he required assistance with ADL. If you require something then it is your responsibilty to have it/arrange & confirm arrangements for that thing. To turn around and blame any one or entity for your failures is unacceptable.

Anyone with a HC/disabled/aged friend/family can now thank Mr. K for putting the cause backwards.

Carole

[bananavan]

@KitKat:

Clap clap clap clap.

Now a standing ovation.

What a well written and thoughtful response. I thank you for that.

It troubles me that people suggest that Celebrity should have just provided a nurse and absorbed the cost.Oh ,really. So now you can take a cruise and if it turns out that you need extra care do not fret, Celebrity (and as a result of this test case, all other cruise lines) will provide you with whatever you might need.

Who will pay for this? Not the cruiseline, if they did I would worry about their financial competencey. No, you and I will because there will be a line item cost added to the fares to take into account the extra price.

If we expect Celebrity to re assign one of the nurses on staff to assist Mr K, what happens when someone is in distress elsewhere? Do his needs for personal assitance trump those of the rest of hte passengers. Celebrity does not keep nurses around just in case extras are needed.

[etoile]

I read somewhere that the situation is proceeding as "binding arbitration" because it is a cruise contract issue, and therefore it cannot be a lawsuit. I'm not sure what this means. Can anybody clarify? (It's from one of the many articles that have been posted.)

[Bridge Maven]

I read somewhere that the situation is proceeding as "binding arbitration" because it is a cruise contract issue, and therefore it cannot be a lawsuit. I'm not sure what this means. Can anybody clarify? (It's from one of the many articles that have been posted.)

 

It means that the parties involved forego the right to sue and agree to abide by the decision made by an objective third party.

[ramman]

@KitKat:

Clap clap clap clap.

Now a standing ovation.

What a well written and thoughtful response. I thank you for that.

It troubles me that people suggest that Celebrity should have just provided a nurse and absorbed the cost.Oh ,really. So now you can take a cruise and if it turns out that you need extra care do not fret, Celebrity (and as a result of this test case, all other cruise lines) will provide you with whatever you might need.

Who will pay for this? Not the cruiseline, if they did I would worry about their financial competencey. No, you and I will because there will be a line item cost added to the fares to take into account the extra price.

If we expect Celebrity to re assign one of the nurses on staff to assist Mr K, what happens when someone is in distress elsewhere? Do his needs for personal assitance trump those of the rest of hte passengers. Celebrity does not keep nurses around just in case extras are needed.

 

 

28 pages and 546 posts so things are getting a bit fuzzy for me. But, I seem to remember a few hundred posts ago, that the offer of a nurse was not one from the Celebrity contracted medical staff. That Celebrity and / or the group that chartered the ship had worked to secure a nurse (that would be paid for my Mr. Keskeny) from off of the ship at the port?

[CaroleLee]

Please clarify - everything I've seen to date is that a nurse/aide was found for him (whether by Celebrity or the charter company isn't clear) and that the aide would have to be /flown to the ship at Mr. Keskeny's expense/.

 

He chose to leave rather than incur that expense.

 

Doesn't sound like they offered a nurse that was already on the ship. If that had the case, they wouldn't have had to go through the gymnastics of re-arranging guests on his floor so that the aide could be accommodated close by his cabin.

 

So where are you reading that they offered him a contracted cruise line nurse that was already present on the ship?

 

While researching a cruise for next year (already booked for this year) I came across this on the X website-just click on topic on the banner Home : Before Cruising : Special Health Concerns

 

 

Planning Ahead

 

While we don't require information about the extent of your disability, the more information you can share with us about your specific needs, the better we are able to assist you.

 

You must provide 72 hours advance notice if you are traveling with a group of 10 or more guests with disability.

 

We encourage you notify us of your needs at the time of booking, however to guarantee availability of specific equipment or services, please provide:

 

• 60 days advance notice if you need sign language interpreting services during your cruise

• 30 days advance notice if you need special equipment or services (see list below) to accommodate your disability during the cruise

 

If we do not receive enough advance notice, we will make reasonable efforts to provide requested equipment and/or services.

 

List of Equipment and Services Requiring Advance Notice

 

60 days prior to sailing • Sign language interpreting services

 

30 days prior to sailing • Raised toilet seat

• Commode chair

• Shower stool

• Transfer bench

• Service animal relief area

• Braille materials

• Large print materials

• Visual-tactile alert system

• Assistive listening device

• Medical refrigerator

• Sharps container

• Distilled water

• Extension cord

• Oxygen supply delivery

• Dialysis supply delivery

 

The information is there, clearly stated. Just simply do the research.

Carole

[kitkat9438]

28 pages and 546 posts so things are getting a bit fuzzy for me. But, I seem to remember a few hundred posts ago, that the offer of a nurse was not one from the Celebrity contracted medical staff. That Celebrity and / or the group that chartered the ship had worked to secure a nurse (that would be paid for my Mr. Keskeny) from off of the ship at the port?

 

You and Jo Beth are both correct. The cruise company worked with Celebrity in an attempt to solve this problem, by offering to shuffle around the tour company's personnel in an attempt to make room for a nurse so that one could be flown in to meet the ship at port.

 

woodofpine insists that Celebrity should have used the onboard account which had a credit card attached to it to pay for Mr. K's nurse without his permission and worry about him disputing the charge after the fact. Totally against the law and constitutes credit card fraud.

 

Etoile, from what I read per the contract they must go to binding arbitration, but Mr. Bernstein, the lawyer now says he is so mad at how Celebrity has treated Mr. K that he is going to file a lawsuit over ADA issues. I guess we will see if that happens.

[goodearth]

Everyone's nickel, dimes and quarters are in the game--here's my two cents:

The guy kicked off the ship may have thought he could 'take care of himself" but didn't acknowledge the situation he was getting into should he HAVE to take care of himself. Many people have handicaps and disabilities (both visible and invisible) and traveling puts all their knowledge and skills to a test. They know what they need to watch out for and they usually go prepared to take care of themselves--medically, financially, insurance wise, etc. At least as prepared as possible. I find it disheartening that this man has put so many responsible people who have 'conditions' in the cross hairs based on his assumption that people will take care of him or help him out should he need it. Needing help with acts of daily living is totally different than someone holding a door open because we are passing through it at the same time. A world of difference--too bad he dragged so many innocent and responsible travelers into this situation. He has done a huge disservice to everyone who travels with a disability.

[CaroleLee]

Everyone's nickel, dimes and quarters are in the game--here's my two cents:

The guy kicked off the ship may have thought he could 'take care of himself" but didn't acknowledge the situation he was getting into should he HAVE to take care of himself. Many people have handicaps and disabilities (both visible and invisible) and traveling puts all their knowledge and skills to a test. They know what they need to watch out for and they usually go prepared to take care of themselves--medically, financially, insurance wise, etc. At least as prepared as possible. I find it disheartening that this man has put so many responsible people who have 'conditions' in the cross hairs based on his assumption that people will take care of him or help him out should he need it. Needing help with acts of daily living is totally different than someone holding a door open because we are passing through it at the same time. A world of difference--too bad he dragged so many innocent and responsible travelers into this situation. He has done a huge disservice to everyone who travels with a disability.

 

Well written. Simple good manners ( holding doors, helping up a step) may be all that a HC/diabled person needs. Above that one has to make arrangements.Agree that he has damaged the innocent.

Carole

[Denny01]

Goodearth....is your real name Pearl S. Buck??? hehehe, couldn't keep from it, sorry!

 

Den

[J & G]

Everyone's nickel, dimes and quarters are in the game--here's my two cents:

The guy kicked off the ship may have thought he could 'take care of himself" but didn't acknowledge the situation he was getting into should he HAVE to take care of himself. Many people have handicaps and disabilities (both visible and invisible) and traveling puts all their knowledge and skills to a test. They know what they need to watch out for and they usually go prepared to take care of themselves--medically, financially, insurance wise, etc. At least as prepared as possible. I find it disheartening that this man has put so many responsible people who have 'conditions' in the cross hairs based on his assumption that people will take care of him or help him out should he need it. Needing help with acts of daily living is totally different than someone holding a door open because we are passing through it at the same time. A world of difference--too bad he dragged so many innocent and responsible travelers into this situation. He has done a huge disservice to everyone who travels with a disability.

 

VERY well said! Most travelers are very willing to assist one another when the need arises, but that does not excuse those who travel knowing that they are unable to completely handle their own needs and expecting others to assist them.

 

This is not just in reference to those with physical limitations.....I get really irritated when people travel with luggage and "stuff" that they clearly cannot handle, expecting that some kind fellow traveler will help them with it. Does someone almost always offer assistance? Yes! Should it be an expectation? NO! Sorry if this offends, but as a frequent traveler, I find that expectation quite irritating. ARGH!

[Nonna and Papa]

Everyone's nickel, dimes and quarters are in the game--here's my two cents:

The guy kicked off the ship may have thought he could 'take care of himself" but didn't acknowledge the situation he was getting into should he HAVE to take care of himself. Many people have handicaps and disabilities (both visible and invisible) and traveling puts all their knowledge and skills to a test. They know what they need to watch out for and they usually go prepared to take care of themselves--medically, financially, insurance wise, etc. At least as prepared as possible. I find it disheartening that this man has put so many responsible people who have 'conditions' in the cross hairs based on his assumption that people will take care of him or help him out should he need it. Needing help with acts of daily living is totally different than someone holding a door open because we are passing through it at the same time. A world of difference--too bad he dragged so many innocent and responsible travelers into this situation. He has done a huge disservice to everyone who travels with a disability.

 

My question to throw into the fray is this: What would have happened to this this man if the ship encountered an emergency? Since he made the assumption that all and anyone on board would take care of his needs, whatever they may have been, without a traveling companion or health aide, how would he have managed in an actual ship's emergency if an evacuation was necessary? The facts seem to indicate very strongly that he did not fill out a disability form and claimed to be so self sufficient that he was confident in refusing the proffered nursing help. Did he expect the other kindhearted passengers to see to him before they saw to themselves?

 

Mary