Royal Caribbean kicked me off cruise ship for having a migraine

[markeb]

I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night...

 

Filing suits, going to small claims court, etc., regardless of the jurisdictional issues (and I know what the contract says, but the State of Maryland sometimes has its own opinion on that sort of thing) is premature. The OP states she has travel insurance; unless or until that insurance denies coverage, she hasn't been "injured" in a financial sense. Yeah, you could try the pain and suffering and public disgrace, etc., but if the insurance "makes her whole" financially, there's no standing between her and RCI/RCCL for the cost of the cruise. If that insurer isn't affiliated with RCCL, THEY have standing as THEY may have been injured by RCCL and/or its independent medical contractor. That's when the collection activities (if pursued) get interesting, but they'd be settled out of court with a nondisclosure agreement...

 

I still hold this is a case of the "legal" thing not being the "right" thing, especially in light of the compensation offered to passengers on Explorer, where I would argue RCI was no more culpable for the noro outbreak than they are for a passenger having a migraine prior to departure. To paraphrase Forest, fecal matter happens, in the case of noro quite literally, and once it happened, there was little or nothing that RCI could do until they returned to base and disinfected a now unoccupied ship. Yet, they paid...

[setsail]

9. FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE FOR ALL LAWSUITS; CLASS ACTION WAIVER: a) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 (b) WITH REGARD TO CLAIMS OTHER THAN FOR PERSONAL INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH OF A PASSENGER, IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN PASSENGER AND CARRIER THAT ALL DISPUTES AND MATTERS WHATSOEVER ARISING UNDER, IN CONNECTION WITH OR INCIDENT TO THIS AGREEMENT, PASSENGER'S CRUISE, CRUISETOUR, LAND TOUR OR TRANSPORT, SHALL BE LITIGATED, IF AT ALL, IN AND BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A., (OR AS TO THOSE LAWSUITS TO WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES LACK SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, BEFORE A COURT LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A.) TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE COURTS OF ANY OTHER STATE, TERRITORY OR COUNTRY. PASSENGER HEREBY CONSENTS TO JURISDICTION AND WAIVES ANY VENUE OR OTHER OBJECTION THAT HE MAY HAVE TO ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING BEING BROUGHT IN THE APPLICABLE COURT LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. b) CLASS ACTION RELIEF WAIVER. PASSENGER HEREBY AGREES THAT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS PARAGRAPH, PASSENGER MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST CARRIER ONLY IN PASSENGER'S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. EVEN IF THE APPLICABLE LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE, PASSENGER AGREES THAT ANY ARBITRATION OR LAWSUIT AGAINST CARRIER, VESSEL OR TRANSPORT WHATSOEVER SHALL BE LITIGATED BY PASSENGER INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF ANY CLASS OR AS PART OF A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION, AND PASSENGER EXPRESSLY AGREES TO WAIVE ANY LAW ENTITLING PASSENGER TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION. IF YOUR CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 BELOW, THE ARBITRATOR SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS ON A CLASS ACTION BASIS. YOU AGREE THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE SEVERABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE SET FORTH IN SECTION 10.b BELOW, AND IF FOR ANY REASON THIS CLASS ACTION WAIVER IS UNENFORCEABLE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR CLAIM, THEN AND ONLY THEN SUCH CLAIM SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION.

[LetsGetWet!]

9. FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE FOR ALL LAWSUITS; CLASS ACTION WAIVER: a) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 (b) WITH REGARD TO CLAIMS OTHER THAN FOR PERSONAL INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH OF A PASSENGER, IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN PASSENGER AND CARRIER THAT ALL DISPUTES AND MATTERS WHATSOEVER ARISING UNDER, IN CONNECTION WITH OR INCIDENT TO THIS AGREEMENT, PASSENGER'S CRUISE, CRUISETOUR, LAND TOUR OR TRANSPORT, SHALL BE LITIGATED, IF AT ALL, IN AND BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A., (OR AS TO THOSE LAWSUITS TO WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES LACK SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, BEFORE A COURT LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A.) TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE COURTS OF ANY OTHER STATE, TERRITORY OR COUNTRY. PASSENGER HEREBY CONSENTS TO JURISDICTION AND WAIVES ANY VENUE OR OTHER OBJECTION THAT HE MAY HAVE TO ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING BEING BROUGHT IN THE APPLICABLE COURT LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. b) CLASS ACTION RELIEF WAIVER. PASSENGER HEREBY AGREES THAT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS PARAGRAPH, PASSENGER MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST CARRIER ONLY IN PASSENGER'S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. EVEN IF THE APPLICABLE LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE, PASSENGER AGREES THAT ANY ARBITRATION OR LAWSUIT AGAINST CARRIER, VESSEL OR TRANSPORT WHATSOEVER SHALL BE LITIGATED BY PASSENGER INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF ANY CLASS OR AS PART OF A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION, AND PASSENGER EXPRESSLY AGREES TO WAIVE ANY LAW ENTITLING PASSENGER TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION. IF YOUR CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 BELOW, THE ARBITRATOR SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS ON A CLASS ACTION BASIS. YOU AGREE THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE SEVERABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE SET FORTH IN SECTION 10.b BELOW, AND IF FOR ANY REASON THIS CLASS ACTION WAIVER IS UNENFORCEABLE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR CLAIM, THEN AND ONLY THEN SUCH CLAIM SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION.

And your point? :)

[setsail]

And your point? :)

 

I would explain it to you but I can't understand it for you;)

[LetsGetWet!]

I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night...

 

Filing suits, going to small claims court, etc., regardless of the jurisdictional issues (and I know what the contract says, but the State of Maryland sometimes has its own opinion on that sort of thing) is premature. The OP states she has travel insurance; unless or until that insurance denies coverage, she hasn't been "injured" in a financial sense. Yeah, you could try the pain and suffering and public disgrace, etc., but if the insurance "makes her whole" financially, there's no standing between her and RCI/RCCL for the cost of the cruise. If that insurer isn't affiliated with RCCL, THEY have standing as THEY may have been injured by RCCL and/or its independent medical contractor. That's when the collection activities (if pursued) get interesting, but they'd be settled out of court with a nondisclosure agreement...

 

I still hold this is a case of the "legal" thing not being the "right" thing, especially in light of the compensation offered to passengers on Explorer, where I would argue RCI was no more culpable for the noro outbreak than they are for a passenger having a migraine prior to departure. To paraphrase Forest, fecal matter happens, in the case of noro quite literally, and once it happened, there was little or nothing that RCI could do until they returned to base and disinfected a now unoccupied ship. Yet, they paid...

Agree completely. As the one who raised the small claims court route, remember that I said I'd pursue that only after pursuing insurance, if the carrier denied the claim for some reason.

[LetsGetWet!]

I would explain it to you but I can't understand it for you;)

You're having trouble understanding it yourself, apparently! No one is disputing that such language exists in RCI's contracts. But such language has been held invalid for other travel companies such as rental car and airline companies in the past - based on the fact that the contract is one-sided giving the consumer no ability to negotiate it, added to the fact that the travel company is doing business within the state and state courts often feel that gives them a right to jurisdiction when a company does business in their state and possibly does injury (financial or otherwise) to their citizens.

[Embracedbylife]

On January 11th, we were supposed to sail on Grandeur of the Seas out of Baltimore to celebrate our 40th anniversary. Instead, we got kicked off the ship at dockside because I came down with a migraine. I started having migraines at age 6, so I've had over 50 years of experience with them. By now, I know when I'm having a migraine and when I'm not. One of my major triggers is flashing lights, particularly bright, intense lights like strobe lights.

 

We got there in plenty of time, there about 10:30 when last check-in time was 3:00. Got into the stateroom, unpacked, had lunch, arranged for a shore excursion to replace one that was cancelled, etc.

 

Then they had the lifeboat drill. I didn't know that when they blow the ship's horn for the signal, they also have strobe lights going off in the corridor. Had there been notice either on the TV or in print, I would have had my husband check to see if it had stopped flashing, or had him lead me out while I covered my eyes. But since they didn't, I came out of my cabin and got one right in the face, no more than 10 feet away. IMMEDIATE migraine onset. And as bad luck would have it, there was a medic (? She never said one way or the other.) right there at the muster station. When I'm coming down with a migraine, I slur and stammer. This is a common-enough symptom that it has a name, dysphasic aura.

 

The medic insisted that I might be having a stroke, and wouldn't listen to me or DH telling them that this was the same set of symptoms that I have with EVERY migraine, and have had for at least the last 20 years. She insisted that I had to go to the infirmary. I finally allowed them to take me there, figuring that I'd tell the doctor I was in migraine prodrome, show him my migraine meds, and he'd know that there was nothing to worry about.

 

It didn't work that way. They gave me my Imitrex, but wouldn't listen when we told them that all I needed to do was lie down in a dark room for a couple of hours. They kicked BOTH of us off the ship and confiscated our shipcards so that we couldn't get back on.

 

They sent me in an ambulance to the ER, where the doctor took one look at me, had me do the very basic neuro test (squeeze hands, smile, check eyes), gave me an EKG, agreed that with my history of migraines, I knew what I was talking about, and discharged me. In and out in half an hour. (When was the last time you got through the ER like THAT on a Saturday afternoon?)

 

Meanwhile the cruise people packed up our stuff and called a taxi for DH. SonIL#2 got there first and took him to the hospital. When DH walked into the room, I was ready to leave. So we came home. Nothing else to do. The ship had sailed as soon as they got DH off of it.

 

I am so sorry to hear about this. What a terrible way to celebrate your 40th! I haven't read all the other posts/recommendations but I can tell you what I would do. I would try talking to the post cruise dept. on your own and forget about the travel agent. He/she tried, but they need to hear from you. And they need to hear that you want to help avoid this from happening to a future cruiser. At least that is what I would do.

 

Next I would ask them questions when you speak to them directly such as: what is the staff protocol for encountering a cruiser that appears sick? Are they obligated to bring you to the Infirmary? Or did this medic take it upon themselves to put you in a situation you didn't want? Secondly, I would ask if the doctors/physicians who are attending in the Infirmary are contracted or employed directly by RCCL? Perhaps the fault is with the Dr. If you can show your ER discharge papers and proof that another Dr. did basic tests and determined what you told them to begin with, then you might prove the Dr. who saw you in the infirmary was below average in his assessment skills and that he jumped the gun. Ultimately the question is, what would an average physician do in the same situation? If you can prove this physician was inadequate you have a huge case. If you can't prove it, then you move on to the next question - what is the protocol for packing up a passenger's things? Could they not have had you meet them at the next port of call? There are too many questions unanswered. Ask and get answers before you decide what you want in compensation and what to do next. That's what I'd do anyway!

[Aquahound]

Ref lawsuits, venue is U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami. I've heard a couple examples over the years of state cases under odd circumstances, but if the op were to file suit in this case, I don't see venue being anywhere other than SDF.

[RDC1]

You're having trouble understanding it yourself, apparently! No one is disputing that such language exists in RCI's contracts. But such language has been held invalid for other travel companies such as rental car and airline companies in the past - based on the fact that the contract is one-sided giving the consumer no ability to negotiate it, added to the fact that the travel company is doing business within the state and state courts often feel that gives them a right to jurisdiction when a company does business in their state and possibly does injury (financial or otherwise) to their citizens.

 

Dealing with cruiselines the courts have routinely upheld the filing forum requirement.

 

"In Wiggins v. Carnival Corporation d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines, 12 the court found no reason why the forum selection clause should not be enforced even though the plaintiffs argued they did not have adequate notice of the forum selection clause and it is fundamentally unfair. Similarly, in Valenti v. Norwegian Cruise Line, 13 the court held: “The source of substantive law for the action was federal maritime law. Under federal maritime law a forum selection clause in a maritime contract was prima facie valid unless there was some independent justification for refusing to enforce it. The cruise line’s requirement that litigation be initiated in a court in Florida was fair and reasonable.” Unless a passenger can meet the high burden of proving fraud or a patently unfair situation, a forum selection clause in a cruise ticket contract must be enforced. 14

 

In this regard, Courts have held that to be enforceable, forum selection clauses in cruise tickets or brochures must be fundamentally fair. 15 Fundamental fairness means (1) that the forum was not selected to discourage pursuit of legitimate claims, (2) there was no fraud or overreaching, (3) the notice of the forum selected was adequate, and (4) the consumer had a reasonable opportunity to reject the cruise contract without penalty. 16 Plaintiffs have been successful in challenging forum selection clauses where they can prove that they did not receive the cruise contract early enough to be able to cancel without being subject to a cancellation fee. 17 For instance, where a cruise line ticket was delivered 13 days before the cruise, the court determined that adequate notice of the forum selection clause was not provided and would not be enforced."

 

It appears that the only time anyone has had success in challenging the forum is if they did not have access to the forum declaration early enough to cancel without a cancellation penalty. Hard to do in these days where the information is online.

[LetsGetWet!]

Ref lawsuits, venue is U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami. I've heard a couple examples over the years of state cases under odd circumstances, but if the op were to file suit in this case, I don't see venue being anywhere other than SDF.

 

Until the judge disagrees with you (and RCI & their contract), for which their is significant precedence.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

[Mira28]

It seems to me that half the country has one (or more) medical issues that could, in some scenario, negatively impact their health and safety on a cruise. Heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure, asthma, autism, psychiatric conditions, osteoporosis, alcoholism...

Should every person declare and describe at length (along with doctors' notes) each of these conditions before boarding?

Despite all the speculation and analysis, we will never know the full story here, nor can we accurately assess the OP's motivation in sharing her upsetting experience on CC.

(I am guessing she now wishes she had not done so!)

Regardless of the legalities involved, I would hope we could all at least empathize with her in the situation. No, it's not the end of the world. But it's sad. She paid for a cruise, expected a joyful occasion and instead endured an unexpected and stressful event. As could happen to any one of us.

[Aquahound]

Until the judge disagrees with you (and RCI & their contract), for which their is significant precedence.

 

There's "significant precedence" in venue change dealing with the cruise industry? :confused:

[Ceblake]

Have read through many of these posts, but I don't see where the women has posted anything since her original.

[RDC1]

It seems to me that half the country has one (or more) medical issues that could, in some scenario, negatively impact their health and safety on a cruise. Heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure, asthma, autism, psychiatric conditions, osteoporosis, alcoholism...

Should every person declare and describe at length (along with doctors' notes) each of these conditions before boarding?

Despite all the speculation and analysis, we will never know the full story here, nor can we accurately assess the OP's motivation in sharing her upsetting experience on CC.

(I am guessing she now wishes she had not done so!)

Regardless of the legalities involved, I would hope we could all at least empathize with her in the situation. No, it's not the end of the world. But it's sad. She paid for a cruise, expected a joyful occasion and instead endured an unexpected and stressful event. As could happen to any one of us.

 

The key language is:

 

Any Passenger with mobility, communication or other impairments, or other special or medical needs that may require medical care or

special accommodations during the cruise

 

So if you have a condition that might result in impairment or require treatment on board, then yes you should notify them. Most of the things listed are not likely to do so, or if they do will most likely in one departing the ship at the first available moment anyway. Serious asthma might be one to fit.

[LetsGetWet!]

There's "significant precedence" in venue change dealing with the cruise industry? :confused:

 

Their is significant precedence within the travel industry. I doubt there's anything significantly unique enough about the cruise segment.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

[RDC1]

Until the judge disagrees with you (and RCI & their contract), for which their is significant precedence.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

 

The one difference from most other businesses with such clauses is the applicability of Federal Maritime Law. As i posted above that puts a lot of power behind the contractual clause and its validity.

[ahecht]

Have read through many of these posts, but I don't see where the women has posted anything since her original.

 

She replied 5 times in this thread

[Aquahound]

Their is significant precedence within the travel industry. I doubt there's anything significantly unique enough about the cruise segment.

 

Ok, that's what I thought you meant. Yes, there is a big difference. It's a business, incorporated foreign (Liberia), and whose ships are also flagged foreign. Add in Admiralty issues, maritime law, foreign nationals who are officers/crew, and yes, even that dreaded contract, it is very rare for claims against the company to be held in other than a federal venue, which is almost always SDF.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Aquahound

[SnorkelAway]

Legally, she would have to plan on arbitrating in Miami - unless there was a way to keep it in Maryland because of suing doctor and his company. A lawyer would have to analyze the chances with all facts but our federal courts love arbitration in any context.

 

What I think are some of the key material facts that are not clear is exactly why she leaves ship and gets in ambulance. If she literally was "kicked off" ship - that is, was she ordered off ship with no chance of getting to hospital and back before ship sailed, then I think that RC should admit that a mistake was made and refund the cruise cost without regard to insurance.

 

Accepting her basic facts (and if you do not accept her basic facts - why comment at all), she was in fact "fit to travel" and did not need to get to a hospital.

 

If this had happened to my wife and me, again accepting her basic facts, I would be extremely annoyed and it would not be about the money - the refund of the money that was paid for the cruise would simply be a statement by RC that they cared about us. If her departure from the ship was in part a voluntary decision, even under pressure, then I do not think it is worth litigating.

 

To the OP - VERY sorry this happened.

[Kellie Poodle]

The Guest Contract as others have said allow for Royal to refuse transportation to anyone they deem unfit for travel. What if the OP contacted the Special Need's Department and informed them about their condition beforehand so that only one person would attend the drill?

 

I have a know for a fact that the Special Needs Department would work with you. They may ask for a fax from your doctor which states about your condition and then they would forward it to the medical staff onboard along with the plan of action such as taking your prescription.

 

I think the OP would have not been disembarked had she contacted the Royal Special Needs Department beforehand to make them aware of her condition. Had she done it it would have been a different experience.

 

 

I've been trying to get this point across throughout the thread. If you have a special need, you are contractually bound to file the form with RCI.

[RDC1]

Ok, that's what I thought you meant. Yes, there is a big difference. It's a business, incorporated foreign (Liberia), and whose ships are also flagged foreign. Add in Admiralty issues, maritime law, foreign nationals who are officers/crew, and yes, even that dreaded contract, it is very rare for claims against the company to be held in other than a federal venue, which is almost always SDF.

 

More than that in the case of cruise lines these clauses have been upheld by the US Supreme Court.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to enforce the forum-selection clause. Forum-selection clauses contained in form passage contracts are subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness, but where they are not lacking in fairness, they will be enforced. Carnival vs Shute

 

Fundamental fairness is basically limited to fraud, that the passenger did not the option to review the contract and cancel without penalty, etc Since the location matches the cruise lines HQ location it meets the jurisdiction standards. It might be unfair if they said it had to be tried in Fairbanks Alaska, while their corporate HQ was in Florida and they put it in Fairbanks simply to make it difficult to file. In this case fundamental fairness does not appear to be violated.

[jd1966]

Wow, if Holland America and Celebrity applied this process consistently, their ships would sail half empty. Sure RCCL has the right to do what they did, but they made the call and shouldn't hide behind their cruise contract! These folks deserve a refund from RCCL! JMO

[RDC1]

Legally, she would have to plan on arbitrating in Miami - unless there was a way to keep it in Maryland because of suing doctor and his company. A lawyer would have to analyze the chances with all facts but our federal courts love arbitration in any context.

 

What I think are some of the key material facts that are not clear is exactly why she leaves ship and gets in ambulance. If she literally was "kicked off" ship - that is, was she ordered off ship with no chance of getting to hospital and back before ship sailed, then I think that RC should admit that a mistake was made and refund the cruise cost without regard to insurance.

 

Accepting her basic facts (and if you do not accept her basic facts - why comment at all), she was in fact "fit to travel" and did not need to get to a hospital.

 

If this had happened to my wife and me, again accepting her basic facts, I would be extremely annoyed and it would not be about the money - the refund of the money that was paid for the cruise would simply be a statement by RC that they cared about us. If her departure from the ship was in part a voluntary decision, even under pressure, then I do not think it is worth litigating.

 

To the OP - VERY sorry this happened.

 

In her opinion she was fit to travel, however considering that she was visibly impaired (enough to draw the attention of a crew member). She said that she slurs her words during such incidents.

 

Since there were no medical records available to the Doctor on board, he apparently has sufficient concerns and ruled that she was not.

 

I suspect that if she had notified the company about the condition when she booked this discussion would not be taking place.

 

Anyone that has cruised a lot knows that if the Doctor has any doubts about a passengers ability to complete the cruise safely and that he can effectively manage the condition off they go.

[Kellie Poodle]

Okay, one last crack at the dying horse.

 

I surmize that the OP's insurance refused to compensate her and that's why she's taking on RCI.

 

She put in writing that she has had this condition for many years. Did she purchase travel insurance that covers pre-existing conditions? I don't believe she did.

 

It does not matter whether she was being treated for a potential stroke, a new condition, the bottom line (and believe me the insurance company is in business to protect its bottom line even if it means throwing the subscriber under the proverbial bus) is that the insurance company knows that there was a preexisting condition that she did not insure for.

 

Do I blame her? Certainly not. We tend to think of preexisting conditions as heart trouble, diabetes, things we take drugs to control, but in reality, any condition that can cause a medical problem (like the OP) could be construed by the insurance company as a pre-existing condition.

 

I believe the OP realizes that she is not in the right and that's why she won't reply to this thread.

 

The horse is now dead. May it rest in peace.:)

[RDC1]

Wow, if Holland America and Celebrity applied this process consistently, their ships would sail half empty. Sure RCCL has the right to do what they did, but they made the call and shouldn't hide behind their cruise contract! These folks deserve a refund from RCCL! JMO

 

They do. The reality is that most people do not experience medical events during a cruise. If they do and seek medical treatment then it is up to the senior medical officer to determine if they can safely continue. If they cannot, off they go.

 

If a patient has a condition that could cause impairment or require treatment on board they should notify the cruise line. The cruise line will request the records they need if any. Lots of people do.