When is a seaman, not a seaman (II)? The U.S 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Santee v Oceaneering International Inc of 12th March 2024 was discussed in – “When is a seaman, not a seaman (I)?”. The decision was that Santee was not a member of the crew and the court held that he had fraudulently pleaded his status as a Jones Act Seaman working as a remote operated vehicle (ROV) technician aboard a drillship on the Outer Continental Shelf. Articles Frederick Phillips Published: November 07, 2024 Contact author Download article pdf The Court reached this decision by determining that Santee owed his allegiance to a shore-based employer, whilst viewing his role on-board the vessel as limited to a discrete task. However, following Santee filing a petition for an en banc rehearing the 5th circuit has reversed its previous decision, indicating that Santee has potential arguments to qualify as a Jones Act seaman and has remanded the case back to state court for further proceedings. The Two-Part Test from Chandris The Fifth Circuit reconsidered this issue in conjunction with the two-part test set out in Chandris v Latsis 1995 (Chandris) which requires that:  The individual contributed to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission; and The individual had a connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that was substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature. The Four-Part Test from Sanchez And, in conjunction with the four-part test set out in Sanchez v Smart Fabricators of Texas LLC [2019] which introduced the following additional considerations:  Is the individual subject to the “perils of the sea”?  Does the individual owe an allegiance to the vessel, or simply a shore-based employer?  Is the work sea-based or involving sea going activity?  Is the assignment to the vessel limited to a discrete task after completion the connection to the vessel ends. The Relevant Tests are