When is a seaman, not a seaman (I)? Santee v Oceaneering International Inc was heard in the Fifth Circuit and is an important decision flowing from the earlier Sanchez decision on whether or not a worker onboard a drillship is considered a Jones Act seaman. This decision reiterates the definition of a seaman. The relevant criteria are useful to employers in assessing which employees are covered under the Jones Act, and its more favourable liability standard, or other federal laws, such as the LHWCA. Articles Frederick Phillips Published: July 23, 2024 Contact author Download article pdf Santee v Oceaneering International Inc was recently heard in the Fifth Circuit and is an important decision flowing from the earlier Sanchez decision on whether or not a worker onboard a drillship is considered a Jones Act seaman. The Marine Merchant Act 1920, known as the Jones Act, provides a statutory right for a Jones Act seaman to sue their employer for negligence and pursue damages under General Maritime Law.  The Jones Act provides a right to a jury trial. This is often preferred by a plaintiff as it increases the possibility of a ruling in their favour and higher awards for damages. The Santee case. From 2016, Shanon Roy Santee worked as a ROV Remote Operated Vehicles (ROV) technician onboard the M/V DEEPWATER CONQUEROR. This drillship was owned by Transocean and chartered to Chevron. In turn, Chevron had a contract with Oceaneering, Santee’s employer, for ROV services. In January 2021, Mr. Santee alleged that he suffered neck and shoulder injuries whilst conducting routine maintenance on an ROV in service of the Chevron contract. It was alleged that the injury was suffered following replacement of a thirty-pound cursor pin on the launch and recovery system, a device which retrieves the ROV from the water. Mr. Santee underwent surgical fusion to address his neck pain. Mr. Santee filed suit in Texas state court. Mr. Santee’s cause of action Claiming under a combination of