EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 1 of 27
.Filing # 109189465 E-Filed 06/22/2020 11:28:26 AM 

ANTONIO SISCA, 

Plaintiff, 

VS. 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN 

AND FOR DADE COUNTY, 

FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

HAL MARITIME, LTD and 

PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD. (Corp.) 

Defendant. 

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff, ANTONIO SISCA, sues Defendants, HAL Maritime, Ltd and Princess Cruise 

Lines, Ltd. (Corp) herein after "Princess Cruise Lines" and in support thereof alleges as follows: 

1. This is an action for damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 

2. At all times material hereto, Defendants HAL, Maritime, Ltd. and Princess Cruise Lines 

Ltd: 

a. Committed one or more acts stated in Florida Statutes § 48.193; and 

b. had agents or representative in this county. (Indeed, Defendant HAL Maritime, Ltd. 

at all times material owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or controlled the 

passenger cruise vessel Vendaam, which sails out of Port Everglades, Florida. 

Similarly, Defendant Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. at all times material owned, 

operated, managed, maintained and/or controlled passenger cruise vessels in 

Florida ports, has an agent, representative and parent corporation in Florida 

3. Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this state, and, particularly, the 

instant Court. 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 2 of 27
4. The causes of action asserted in this Complaint arise under the Jones Act and General 

Maritime Law of the United States. 

5. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a twenty-eight-year-old Italian national 

professional dancer hired by HAL, Maritime Ltd to work as a "cast member" aboard the 

MN Vendaam. 

6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a Jones Act seaman and HAL Maritime, Ltd was 

Plaintiff's Jones Act employer. 

7. As Plaintiff's Jones Act employer, HAL had the fundamental duty of exercising reasonable 

care in providing Plaintiff a reasonably safe means of repatriating upon completing his 

employment contract. 

8. As Plaintiff's Jones Act employer, HAL also owed Plaintiff the fundamental duty of 

providing Plaintiff prompt and adequate medical treatment for any injury illness 

manifesting aboard the vessel. 

9. At all times material hereto, Defendant Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd was the owner and 

operator of the vessel Regal Princess. As vessel owner and operator, Defendant Princess 

owed Plaintiff, a seaman, the fundamental and non-delegable duty of providing him 

• prompt and adequate medical treatment for any injury illness manifesting aboard their 

vessel. • 

10. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff's employment contract with HAL commenced on 

July 26, 2019 and expired on April 22, 2020. Attached as Composite Exhibit "1" is a true 

and correct copy of Plaintiff's "Seagoing Employment Agreement" and "Seagoing 

Employment Agreement -Terms and Conditions May 1,2019 Version" ("SEA"). 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 3 of 27
11. The SEA -Terms and Conditions May 1, 2019 Version" contains an arbitration clause 

which purports to apply to "Any disputes whatsoever relating to or in any way arising out 

of this Agreement or your service on board a ship." Exhibit"!". 

12. ¶ 1. A. of the "SEA -Terms and Conditions" states the terms and conditions extend only 

to periods "...in which you are in active service sailing on a ship in an officer or 

crewmember capacity (the Employment Term)... you are not in the service of us or any of 

the ships owned by our affiliates during leave periods or while you are in transit to or from 

any ship." Id. 

13. A plain reading of the employment contract's terms evidences a mutual intent between 

the parties to have the contract terms extend only to periods in which Plaintiff was in 

active service of their ships in a crewmember capacity during "the Employment Term" 

and not to periods when Plaintiff was not "in active service" or while he was "in transit 

to or from any ship". 

14. Plaintiff's accident and injuries occurred on April 23, 2020 or one day after the 

"Employment Term" expired, and while Plaintiff was "in transit to a ship". 

15. Because Plaintiff's accident and claim arose after the "the Employment Term" expired and 

while "in transit to or from any ship" the terms of the SEA including the arbitration clause 

are inapt to Plaintiffs claims. 

16. On or March 14, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control "CDC" announced a no sail 

order for cruise ships due to the Covid 19 pandemic. 

17. On or about March 18, 2020 the Vendamm disembarked all its passengers and most 

crewmembers in Port Everglades, Florida. 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 4 of 27
18. On or about March 18th 2020 Plaintiff requested to be disembarked in Ft. Lauderdale and 

repatriated to Italy via NY La Guardia airport which at that time was the only Italian 

government authorized international airport in the east coast of the U.S. allowed to fly into 

Italy. 

19. Defendant, HAL, however refused Plaintiff's request to be disembarked in Port Everglades 

and instead kept him aboard the vessel against his will anchored in the middle of the 

Atlantic until April 23, 2020. 

20. On or about April 23, 2020, the CDC issued guidelines to the cruise companies describing 

how they could repatriate people safely using private transportation while the CDC 

reviewed their plans. In addition, the interim CDC order required cruise lines officials to 

provide a signed attestation guaranteeing crew members would be repatriated safely by 

non-commercial travel. 

21. According to CDC spokesperson Jasmine Reed, however," Holland America nor Carnival 

provided the attestation despite requests from CDC....The refusal of Holland America and 

Carnival executives to attest to safe disembarkation conditions is the reason why CDC did 

not approve disembarkation for the Oosterdam crew." Taylor Dolven, Miami Herald,April 

30,2020. 

22. Despite the restrictions imposed on debarkation of crewmembers in U.S. ports, the CDC, 

however, continued to "support urgent medical evacuations of crew in U.S. waters and 

ports, either by air or land ambulance. Emergency medical evacuations should be 

coordinated with U.S. Coast Guard and the receiving medical facility and do not require 

CDC approval. CDC has notified all cruise lines as well as federal, state, and local partners 

that the No Sail Order of April 15 will not prevent crew members from receiving 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 5 of 27
emergency medical care." National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases 

(NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases. 

23. On April 22, 2020 Plaintiffs employment contract with HAL ended by its own expiring 

terms. 

24. On April 23, 2020, the Vendaam began deploying lifeboats to transfer European 

crewmembers to Princess Cruise Lines' vessel Regal Princess for repatriation out of 

Southampton, U.K. 

25. Due to the high winds and rough sea conditions, however, the lifeboats violently rolled 

from side to side while sea water from the crashing waves sloshed inside of the lifeboats. 

26. On April 23, 2020 in transit to the Regal Princess from the Vendaam, Plaintiff twice slipped 

and violently fell on his lower back while trying to assist another crewmember who became 

seasick from the rough seas. 

27. On April 24th, 2020 Plaintiff reported to the Regal Princess' ship's doctors experiencing 

severe back pain and numbness on his left foot. After examining Plaintiff, the ship's doctor 

noted Plaintiff suffered a back injury directly caused after a fall and prescribed him pain 

medication and declared him fit "to return to normal working duties on next shift". 

28. On April 25, 2020 Plaintiff was seen again at the ship's medical facility where he reported 

increased paresthesia running from the back of his left leg to his left heel and was noted to 

have a positive straight leg on his left causing pain and paresthesia. 

29. On April 26, 2020 Plaintiff reported experiencing electric shocks gown down his legs 

while walking and tingling of his leg when not walking. Plaintiffs neurological symptoms 

became progressively worse with each passing day. 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 6 of 27
30. On April 27, 2020 Plaintiff was referred by the Regal Princess to a shoreside hospital in 

Bermuda which noted Plaintiff had a history of falling and experiencing leg numbness as 

well as bowel and bladder incontinence for past three days. 

31. Despite the clear indications of serious lower back and corresponding nerve injuries 

requiring emergency surgery, the physicians at the Bermuda hospital found "Mr. Sisca 

has no neurological process account for his ongoing back pain" and recommended he 

follow up with an orthopedic spine specialist upon return home and found he was fit for 

travel by air. 

32. Rather than fly Plaintiff to Italy from Bermuda so he could be seen by a spine specialist 

sooner, Defendant once again kept Plaintiff aboard the Regal Princess to continue its tenday transatlantic crossing to Southampton, U.K. 

33. Over the course of the ten-day transatlantic voyage, Plaintiff's neurological picture became 

more dire and so did his desperate pleas for medical treatment. 

34. Throughout the ten-day transatlantic journey, however, all the ship's doctors did was 

prescribe Plaintiff copious amounts of morphine and other strong opiate pain medications 

while either negligently or grossly negligently missing or ignoring the glaring signs of 

serious neurological injuries and need for emergency spine and nerve decompression 

surgery. 

35. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff's medical care was being managed and coordinated 

by Holland America and Princess Cruise Lines' parent corporation Carnival Corporation 

out of Miami, Florida. 

36. By the time the Regal Princess arrived Southampton on May 5, 2020, Plaintiff had already 

become paraplegic and was suffering from complete urinary and bowel incontinence. 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 7 of 27
37. As soon as the vessel arrived, Plaintiff was sent unaccompanied by ambulance to the public 

hospital in Southampton where he was left unattended for hours in excruciating pain, 

starving, and covered in feces from the waist down and vomit all over his upper body. 

38. At the U.K. hospital Plaintiff was diagnosed with "functional neurology secondary to 

back pain" and noted to be unable walk or feel his legs and suffering from bowel and 

bladder incontinence. 

39. On May 8, 2020 Plaintiff was discharged from the U.K. hospital and finally repatriated 

to Italy. 

40. On May 9, 2020 Plaintiff was admitted for emergency spinal surgery with a diagnosis of 

cauda equina syndrome with "almost complete loss of strength and mobility of the lowe 

limbs as well as urinary and fecal incontinence." 

41. CT Scan of Plaintiff's spine showed a fracture of the posterior arch L4 causing spinal 

instability and narrowing of the spinal canal and so Plaintiff was recommended to 

undergo emergency spinal surgery. 

42. On May 10, 2020, or 20 days after Plaintiff first reported uncontrollable back pain 

and serious neurological injuries requiring emergency treatment, Plaintiff underwent a - 

"circumferential L4-L5 arthrodesis with screws and interbody cage + L4 posterior arch 

removal for decompression." 

43. Post operatively, Plaintiff remains wheelchair bound in a paraplegic state unable 

to control his bladder or bowel movements. 

44. As of the filing of this complaint, Plaintiff continues to undergo medical treatment and 

has not reached maximum medical improvement. 

COUNT I 

HAL MARITIME LTD- JONES ACT NEGLIGENCE 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 8 of 27
Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein, and 

further 

alleges: 

45. At all times material hereto, Defendant HAL Maritime Ltd. owed Plaintiff the duty of 

exercising reasonable care in providing a reasonably safe means of repatriation upon 

completion of his employment contract. 

46. Defendant HAL's obligation to repatriate Plaintiff in a reasonably safe manner is a 

maritime legal obligation existing independently of any employment contract between 

the vessel owner and the seafarer. 

47. As Plaintiffs Jones Act employer, Defendant HAL Maritime, Ltd. owed Plaintiff the 

non delegable duty of providing him with prompt and adequate medical treatment for 

any injury or illness manifesting while Plaintiff was aboard their vessel. 

48. Defendant HAL Maritime Ltd., breached the fundamental duty owed to Plaintiff to 

exercise reasonable care in providing him with a reasonably safe means of repatriation, 

including, without limitation as follows: 

a) by failing to disembark Plaintiff from the Vendaam on March 18, 2020 in 

Port Everglades, Fl along with the rest of crewmembers so Plaintiff could 

safely repatriate by air from Port Everglades, Fl 

b) by negligently transferring Plaintiff to the Regal Princess using a lifeboat in 

rough and dangerous sea conditions thus causing Plaintiff to fall and injure 

his back inside the lifeboat 

c) by failing to have properly trained and skilled workers experienced in 

navigating a lifeboat in rough and dangerous seas 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 9 of 27
d) by not postponing the vessel transfer to another day or time in which sea 

conditions were more favorable for a safe transit 

e) by not having another mate aboard the lifeboat in addition to the lifeboat 

captain to assist other crewmembers who became seasick during the transfer 

49. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered harm, including, without limitation, 

serious bodily injuries, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, emotional distress, 

mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, 

medical and/or nursing care and/or treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn 

money, loss of room and board and meals and other fringe benefits available to Plaintiff as 

a member of the vessel's crew. One or more of the losses are permanent and/or continuing, 

and Plaintiff will suffer the loss(es) in the future. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment under the Jones Act against the 

Defendant, HAL MARITIME LTD. together with any and all compensatory damages, 

statutory interest as permitted, pre-judgment interest as permitted, attorney's fees as 

permitted, costs.aspermitted, trial by jury for all issues so triable, and any other relief that 

this Court deems proper. 

COUNT II 

HAL MARITIME LTD. JONES ACT NEGLIGENCE-FAILURE TO PROVIDE 

PLAINTIFF PROMPT AND ADEQUATE MEDICAL TREATMENT 

50. As Plaintiff's Jones Act employer, Defendant HAL Maritime, Ltd. owed Plaintiff the 

fundamental and non-delegable duty of providing him with prompt and adequate medical 

treatment for any injury or illness manifesting while Plaintiff was aboard their vessel. 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 10 of 27
51. Defendant breached its fundamental and non-delegable legal duty to provide Plaintiff 

prompt and adequate medical treatment for the injuries suffered by Plaintiff on April 23, 

2020 aboard Defendant's lifeboat including, without limitation as follows: 

a) by negligently and/or grossly negligently relying on physicians lacking or 

possessing the requisite knowledge, training, or experience to adequately diagnose 

and/or treat Plaintiff's medical conditions and negligently /or grossly negligently 

failing to timely refer Plaintiff to undergo proper diagnostic tests, or to recommend 

that further tests be performed based on the continued steady decline of Plaintiffs 

neurological and urological condition following the April 23,2020 accident aboard 

the lifeboat 

b) by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate guidelines 

concerning the care and medical supervision of a crewmember in Plaintiff's 

condition; and/or 

c) failing to conduct proper physical examinations on the Plaintiff and/or 

d) • by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to timely provide Plaintiff 

emergency medical care and treatment and/or recommend adequate follow-up 

medical care to Plaintiff; and/or by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to 

consult with other specialized physicians or health care providers regarding the 

care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff, including as to appropriate evaluation and 

diagnosis; and/or 

e) by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to air vac Plaintiff from the 

vessel to a facility in South Florida specializing in spine injures and 

paralysis 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 11 of 27
0 by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to airlift Plaintiff from the 

vessel to any facility on the west side of the Atlantic which specializes in spinal 

injuries and paralysis and/or 

g) Negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to airlift Plaintiff from Bermuda 

to his home country to receive emergency care and treatment and/or 

h) by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate guidelines 

for referral of patients to appropriate medical specialists for examination and 

testing. 

52. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered harm, including, without limitation, 

bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, emotional distress, mental 

anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical 

and/or nursing care and/or treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, loss 

of ability to obtain proper health insurance and/or aggravation of a previously existing 

condition. One or more of the losses are permanent and/or continuing, and Plaintiff will 

suffer the loss(es) in the future. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment under the U.S. General Maritime law 

against the Defendant, HAL MARITIME LTD together with any and all compensatory damages, 

statutory interest as permitted, pre-judgment interest as permitted, attorney's fees as permitted, 

costs as permitted, trial by jury for all issues so triable, and any other relief that this Court deems 

proper. 

COUNT III HAL MARITIME LTD 

U.S. GENERAL MARITIME LAW CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROMPT 

AND ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE AND CURE 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 12 of 27
Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein, and 

further alleges: 

53. Under the U.S. General Maritime Law, Plaintiff, as a seaman, is entitled to receive prompt 

and adequate medical treatment for any injury or illness manifesting while in the service 

of the vessel until he is declared to have reached maximum possible cure. Maintenance and 

cure is an ancient duty under the law of admiralty that arises against a shipowner in favor 

of a seaman who becomes ill, injured, or incapacitated, or whose condition becomes 

aggravated or enhanced for any reason, at least until the time that the seaman has achieved 

maximum medical recovery. Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, (1962.) Accordingly, 

with the combined object of encouraging marine commerce and assuring the well-being of 

seamen, maritime nations uniformly have imposed broad responsibilities for their health 

and safety upon vessel owners and Jones Act employers, such as the Defendants. 

Maintenance and cure provide a seaman, who is injured or ill while in the service of the 

vessel, medical care and treatment, and the means of maintaining him or herself, while 

recuperating. A seaman, like Plaintiff, is entitled to maintenance and cure until he or she 

reaches maximum possible cure, irrespective of whether the illness or injuries were 

received by negligence or accident. 

54. At all times material, Defendant was a Jones Act Employer and vessel owner and had a 

fundamental absolute and non-delegable duty under the U.S. General Maritime Law to 

make provision to Plaintiff of prompt and adequate maintenance and cure in a nonnegligent manner. Defendant HAL is liable under the Jones Act and U.S. General Maritime 

Law in damages for harm resulting in whole or in part from the negligent failure of its 

officers, agents, or employees to make provision of prompt and adequate maintenance and 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 13 of 27
cure. Under the Jones Act, a simple showing of some negligence on the part of the 

employer which played any part, even the slightest, in producing harm to the Plaintiff, 

creates a jury question on the issue of negligence. Defendant HAL is liable for damages 

under the U.S. General Maritime Law if it fails to provide or pay a seaman prompt and 

adequate maintenance or fails to provide prompt and adequate maintenance and cure. 

Defendant, HAL is liable for even greater damages if its failure to provide or pay a seaman 

prompt and adequate maintenance or failure to provide prompt and adequate cure is willful, 

arbitrary, capricious, and in callous disregard of the rights of a seaman. Furthermore, 

Defendant HAL, is liable if there was negligence in the ministration — essentially the act of 

supplying or furnishing — of maintenance and cure. There are, indeed, two alternative ways 

in which an employer is liable for negligence in the ministration of maintenance and cure: 

(1) If the Defendant was negligent in selecting and/or relying upon one or more of the 

physicians and health care providers who treated the seaman; or (2) one or more of the 

physicians and health care providers who treated the seaman was/were negligent in the 

treatment of the seaman. Relative to the second of these ways, Defendant HAL is liable 

for acts of negligence by any of said physicians and health care providers if any of said 

physicians or health care providers did not exercise the degree of care and skill of the 

averaged qualified practitioner of the art and science of medicine. Here, Defendant's 

shipboard physicians as well as the shoreside physicians Defendant referred Plaintiff to in 

Bermuda and Southampton breached the standard of care of the average qualified 

practitioner of the art and science of medicine by failing to diagnose and/or treat and/or 

timely refer Plaintiff to a qualified medical expert for diagnosis and adequate medical 

treatment to Plaintiff, inasmuch as Plaintiff was kept aboard the vessel and treated with 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 14 of 27
pain medicines instead of providing him the required course of medical treatment which 

caused an aggravation of all his injuries. 

55. Defendant's shipboard and the shoreside physicians Plaintiff was referred to by Defendant 

in Bermuda and Southampton breached the standard of care and skill of the averaged 

qualified practitioner of the art and science of medicine and thus failed to provide Plaintiff 

with prompt and adequate maintenance and cure, including, without limitation as follows: 

a. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to possess the requisite 

knowledge, training, or experience to adequately diagnose and treat Plaintiffs 

medical conditions. 

b. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to timely refer Plaintiff to undergo 

proper diagnostic tests, or to recommend that further tests be performed based on 

the unresolved complaints of back and wrist pains; and/or 

c. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate guidelines 

concerning care and supervision of a crewmember in Plaintiffs condition; and/or 

d. Failing to obtain proper physical examinations on the Plaintiff. 

e. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to provide and/or recommend 

adequate follow-up care to Plaintiff; and/or 

f. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to consult with other physicians or 

health care providers in regard to the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff, 

including as to appropriate evaluation and diagnosis; and/or 

g. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to prescribe, order, and/or perform 

indicated diagnostic procedures that would have revealed Plaintiff's true condition 

and dictated a different course of care and treatment for Plaintiffs; and/or 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 15 of 27
h. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to request consultation with 

appropriate medical specialists who would have prescribed, ordered, and/or 

performed procedures to prevent the condition from remaining untreated and 

allowing it to worsen; and/or 

i. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate guidelines 

for referral of patients to appropriate medical specialists for examination and 

testing. 

j. by negligently and/or grossly negligently relying on physicians lacking or 

possessing the requisite knowledge, training, or experience to adequately diagnose 

and/or treat Plaintiff's medical conditions and negligently /or grossly negligently 

failing to timely refer Plaintiff to undergo proper diagnostic tests, or to recommend 

that further tests be performed based on the continued steady decline of Plaintiff's 

neurological and urological condition following the April 23, 2020 accident aboard 

the lifeboat 

k. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate guidelines 

concerning the care and medical supervision of a crewmember in Plaintiffs 

condition; and/or 

I. failing to conduct proper physical examinations on the Plaintiff and/or 

m. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to timely provide Plaintiff 

emergency medical care and treatment and/or recommend 

n. adequate follow-up medical care to Plaintiff; and/or by negligently and/or grossly 

negligently failing to consult with other specialized physicians or health care 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 16 of 27
providers regarding the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff, including as to 

appropriate evaluation and diagnosis; and/or 

o. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to air vac Plaintiff from the vessel 

to a facility in South Florida specializing in spine injures and paralysis 

p. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to airlift Plaintiff from the vessel 

to any facility on the west side of the Atlantic which specializes in spinal injuries 

and paralysis and/or 

q. negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to airlift Plaintiff from Bermuda to 

his home country to receive emergency care and treatment and/or by negligently 

and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate guidelines for referral of 

patients to appropriate medical specialists for examination and testing. 

56. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered harm, including, without limitation, 

bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, emotional distress, mental 

anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical 

and/or nursing care and/or treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, loss 

of ability to obtain proper health insurance and/or aggravation of a previously existing 

condition. One or more of the losses are permanent and/or continuing, and Plaintiff will 

suffer the loss(es) in the future. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment under the U.S. General Maritime law 

against the Defendant, HAL MARITIME LTD together with any and all compensatory damages, 

statutory interest as permitted, pre-judgment interest as permitted, attorney's fees as permitted, 

costs as permitted, trial by jury for all issues so triable, and any other relief that this Court deems 

proper. 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 17 of 27
COUNT IV 

PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD 

U.S. GENERAL MARITIME LAW CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROMPT 

AND ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE AND CURE 

Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein, and 

further alleges: 

• 57. Under the U.S. General Maritime Law, Plaintiff, as a seaman, is entitled to receive 

prompt and adequate medical treatment from Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. for any injury 

or illness manifesting while in the service of the vessel until she is declared to have reached 

maximum possible cure. Maintenance and cure is an ancient duty under, the law of 

admiralty that arises against a shipowner in favor of a seaman who becomes ill, injured, or 

incapacitated, or whose condition becomes aggravated or enhanced for any reason, at least 

until the time that the seaman has achieved maximum medical recovery. Vaughan v. 

Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, (1962). Accordingly, with the combined object of encouraging 

marine commerce and assuring the well-being of seamen, maritime nations uniformly have 

imposed broad responsibilities for their health and safety upon vessel owners and Jones 

Act employers, such as the Defendants. Maintenance and cure provide a seaman, who is 

injured or ill while in the service of the vessel, medical care and treatment, and the means 

of maintaining him or herself, while recuperating. A seaman, like Plaintiff, is entitled to 

maintenance and cure until he or she reaches maximum possible cure, irrespective of 

whether the illness or injuries were received by negligence or accident. 

58. At all times material, Defendant was the owner of the vessel Regal Princess and had a 

• fundamental, absolute, and non-delegable duty under the U.S. General Maritime Law to 

make provision to Plaintiff of prompt and adequate maintenance and cure in a nonCase 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 18 of 27
negligent manner. Defendant Princess is liable under the U.S. General Maritime Law in 

damages for harm resulting in whole or in part from the negligent failure of its officers, 

agents, or employees to make provision of prompt and adequate maintenance and cure. 

Defendant Princess is liable for damages under the U.S. General Maritime Law if it fails 

to provide or pay a seaman prompt and adequate maintenance or fails to provide prompt 

and adequate maintenance and cure. Defendant, Princess is liable for even greater damages 

if its failure to provide or pay a seaman prompt and adequate maintenance or failure to 

provide prompt and adequate cure is willful, arbitrary, capricious, and in callous disregard 

of the rights of a seaman. Furthermore, Defendant Princess is liable if there was negligence 

in the ministration — essentially the act of supplying or furnishing — of maintenance and 

cure. There are, indeed, two alternative ways in which an employer is liable for negligence 

in the ministration of maintenance and cure: (1) If the Defendant was negligent in selecting 

and/or relying upon one or more of the physicians and health care providers who treated 

the seaman; or (2) one or more of the physicians and health care providers in who treated 

the seaman was/were negligent in the treatment of the seaman. Relative to the second of 

these ways, Defendant DCL is liable for acts of negligence by any of said physicians and 

health care providers if any of said physicians or health care providers did not exercise the 

degree of care and skill of the averaged qualified practitioner of the art and science of 

medicine. Here, Defendant's shipboard physicians as well as the shoreside physicians 

Defendant referred Plaintiff to in Bermuda and Southampton breached the standard of care 

of the average qualified practitioner of the art and science of medicine by failing to 

diagnose and/or treat and/or timely refer Plaintiff to a qualified medical expert for diagnosis 

and adequate medical treatment to Plaintiff, inasmuch as Plaintiff was kept aboard the 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 19 of 27
vessel and treated with pain medicines instead of providing him the required course of 

medical treatment which caused an aggravation of all his injuries. 

59. Defendant's shipboard and the shoreside physicians Plaintiff was referred to by Defendant 

in Bermuda and Southampton breached the standard of care and skill of the averaged 

qualified practitioner of the art and science of medicine and thus failed to provide Plaintiff 

with prompt and adequate maintenance and cure, including, without limitation as follows: 

a. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to possess the requisite 

knowledge, training, or experience to adequately diagnose and treat.Plaintiff's 

medical conditions. 

b. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to timely refer Plaintiff to undergo 

proper diagnostic tests, or to recommend that further tests be performed based on 

the unresolved complaints of back and wrist pains; and/or 

c. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate guidelines 

concerning care and supervision of a crewmember in Plaintiff's condition; and/or 

d. Failing to obtain proper physical examinations on the Plaintiff. 

e. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to provide and/or recommend 

adequate follow-up care to Plaintiff; and/or 

a. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to consult with other 

physicians or health care providers in regard to the care and treatment 

rendered to Plaintiff, including as to appropriate evaluation and diagnosis; 

and/or 

b. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to prescribe, order, and/or 

perform indicated diagnostic procedures that would have revealed 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 20 of 27
Plaintiff's true condition and dictated a different course of care and 

treatment for Plaintiffs; and/or 

c. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to request consultation 

with appropriate medical specialists who would have prescribed, ordered, 

and/or performed procedures to prevent the condition from remaining 

untreated and allowing it to worsen; and/or 

d. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate 

guidelines for referral of patients to appropriate medical specialists for 

examination and testing. 

e. by negligently and/or grossly negligently relying on physicians lacking or 

possessing the requisite knowledge, training, or experience to adequately 

diagnose and/or treat Plaintiff's medical conditions and negligently /or 

grossly negligently failing to timely refer Plaintiff to undergo proper 

diagnostic tests, or to recommend that further tests be performed based on 

the continued steady decline of Plaintiff's neurological and urological 

condition following the April 23, 2020 accident aboard the lifeboat 

by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate 

guidelines concerning the care and medical supervision of a crewmember 

in Plaintiff's condition; and/or 

g. failing to conduct proper physical examinations on the Plaintiff and/or 

h. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to timely provide Plaintiff 

emergency medical care and treatment and/or recommend 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 21 of 27
i. adequate follow-up medical care to Plaintiff; and/or by negligently and/or 

grossly negligently failing to consult with other specialized physicians or 

health care providers regarding the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff, 

including as to appropriate evaluation and diagnosis; and/or 

j. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to air vac Plaintiff from the 

vessel to a facility in South Florida specializing in spine injures and 

paralysis 

k. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to airlift Plaintiff from the 

vessel to any facility on the west side of the Atlantic which,specializes in 

spinal injuries and paralysis and/or negligently and/or grossly negligently 

failing to airlift Plaintiff from Bermuda to his home country to receive 

emergency care and treatment and/or 

I. by negligently and/or grossly negligently failing to follow appropriate 

guidelines for referral of patients to appropriate medical specialists for 

examination and testing. 

60. As a direct arid proximate result, Plaintiff suffered harm, including, without limitation, 

bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, emotional distress, mental 

anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical 

and/or nursing care and/or treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, loss 

of ability to obtain proper health insurance and/or aggravation of a previously existing 

condition. One or more of the losses are permanent and/or continuing, and Plaintiff will 

suffer the loss(es) in the future. 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 22 of 27
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment under the U.S. General Maritime law 

against the Defendant, Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. together with any and all compensatory 

damages, statutory interest as permitted, pre-judgment interest as permitted, attorney's fees as 

permitted, costs as permitted, trial by jury for all issues so triable,. and any other relief that this 

Court deems proper. 

COUNTV 

PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD 

UNSEA WORTHINESS 

Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein, and 

further 

alleges: 

61. Unseaworthiness is a claim under general maritime law based on the vessel owner's duty 

to ensure that the vessel is reasonably fit to be at sea. The shipowner's duty is breached 

when a condition of the vessel, temporary or permanent, renders the vessel not reasonably 

fit for its intended use or service. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539 (1960). 

62. Liability under the doctrine of unseaworthiness is not dependent upon the shipowner's 

actual or constructive knowledge of an unseaworthy condition, nor does liability depend 

upon fault. In addition, the shipowner's duty to furnish a seaworthy vessel is completely 

independent of his duty to exercise reasonable care under the Jones Act. The duty to 

provide a seaworthy vessel is not mitigated or discharged by the exercise of reasonable 

care or due diligence. 

Furthermore, the shipowner's warranty of seaworthiness extends to the vessel's crew and 

appurtenances. The shipowner breaches this duty by manning the vessel with an unfit, 

incompetent, inadequate, defective, or improperly trained or supervised crew. A condition 

of a crew member (or a group thereof) rendering him (1) not fit for his ordinary duties or 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 23 of 27
(2) not up to the ordinary standards of his profession is an unseaworthy condition sufficient 

to warrant the imposition of liability on the shipowner. Wagon Dixon v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Ltd., 679 So. 2d 811 (Fl 3rd DCA 1996). 

63. Defendant PRINCESS had the absolute, non-delegable duty to provide Plaintiff with 

seaworthy vessel. 

64. Defendant breached its duty to maintain its vessel in a seaworthy condition and said breach 

was a legal cause of injury and damage to Plaintiff by reason of one or more of the 

following: 

a. The vessels did not have a reasonably fit shipboard medical crew; and/or the 

shipboard medical crew was incompetent and/or not reasonably fit for their 

ordinary duties as shipboard physicians and/or not up to the ordinary standards of 

their profession as shipboard physicians 

b. The vessel's medical crew failed to follow proper medical treatment protocols and 

were overworked and understaffed and required to work such long hours and/or 

under such horrendous conditions, to the point of being exhausted and/or incapable 

of appreciating the signs and symptoms of Plaintiffs true medical condition and/or 

they were not physically fit to carry out their duties and/or their bodies and minds 

were fatigued rendering them unfit to serve as a medical providers. 

65. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered harm, including, without limitation, 

bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, emotional distress, mental 

anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical 

• and/or nursing care and/or treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, loss 

of ability to obtain proper health insurance and/or aggravation of a previously existing 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 24 of 27
condition. One or more of the losses are permanent and/or continuing, and Plaintiff will 

suffer the loss(es) in the future. 

COUNT VI 

PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD 

NEGLIGENCE -US GENRAL MARITIME LAW 

Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein, and 

further 

alleges: 

66. Under General Maritime Law an owner of a ship in navigable waters owes to all who are 

on board for purposes not inimical to his legitimate interests the duty of exercising 

reasonable care under the circumstances of each case. This standard of duty extends to 

passengers, invites or licensees. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Translatlantique, 358 

US 625 (1959 

67. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an invitee aboard Defendant Princess Cruise 

Lines, Ltd.'s vessel Regal Empress. Accordingly, Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty of 

reasonable ordinary care under the circumstances. 

68. Negligence is an actionable wrong under general maritime law, and the elements of that 

tort are essentially the same as land-based negligence under the common law. To state a 

claim for relief under maritime law, the plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a duty 

owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty, injury sustained by the plaintiff, 

and a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiffs injury. Under 

maritime law, a plaintiff is owed a duty of ordinary care under the circumstances. Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 25 of 27
69. Defendant breached its duty of exercising reasonable care under the circumstances for the 

health, care, safety, and wellbeing of the Plaintiff while he was aboard Defendant's vessel. 

70. At all times material hereto, Defendant was aware that Plaintiff's neurological damages 

were becoming increasingly worse each day after first reporting his accident and injuries 

on April 24, 2020. 

71. The reasonable standard of care required Princess to air vac or emergency medically 

disembark Plaintiff and get him to a Level 1 trauma center where qualified medical doctors 

specializing in spinal injuries and treatment of cauda equina syndrome type injuries would 

be available to treat Plaintiff. 

72. Instead of disembarking Plaintiff on medical emergency grounds, Defendant kept Plaintiff 

aboard the vessel and pumped him with morphine for ten more days while crossing the 

Atlantic and reaching Southampton, UK. 

73. In the maritime tort context, the determination of the existence and scope of a duty is 

determined by the foreseeability of the harm suffered by the complaining party. In re Great 

Lakes Dredge & Dock Co, LLC, 624 F3d 211 (5th Cir 2012) 

74. The aggravation of neurological injuries leading to permanent paraplegia and permanent 

urinary and fecal incontinence was a foreseeable consequence of the delay in getting 

Plaintiff the medical treatment Plaintiff he required. 

75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's delay in providing Plaintiff the emergency 

treatment and surgery he required, Plaintiff suffered additional harm, including, without 

limitation, bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, emotional distress, 

mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, 

medical and/or nursing care and/or treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 26 of 27
money, loss of ability to obtain proper health insurance and/or aggravation of a previously 

existing condition. One or more of the losses are permanent and/or continuing, and Plaintiff 

will suffer the loss(es) in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant together with any and 

all compensatory damages, statutory interest as permitted, pre-judgment interest as permitted, 

attorney's fees as permitted, costs as permitted, trial by jury for all issues so triable, and any other 

relief that this Court deems proper. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants HAL Maritime 

Ltd., and Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. together With any and all compensatory damages, statutory 

interest as permitted, pre-judgment interest as permitted, attorney's fees as permitted, costs as 

permitted, trial by jury for all issues so triable, and any other relief that this Court deems proper. 

DATED THIS 22nd day of June 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s Julio J.Ayala, Esq 

Crewmember & Maritime Advocacy Center 

113 Almeria Ave, 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Telephone: (305) 374-9099 

Facsimile: (305) 374-5099 

Julio J. Ayala, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0977070 

crewesq@crewadvocacy.com 

Case 1:20-cv-22911-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 27 of 27