Wash. Top Court Finds ‘Traveling Employee’ Rule Sets Clock for Flight Attendant’s COVID Claim

Case File

When a flight attendant contracted COVID-19 during the early throes of the pandemic, according to the Washington Supreme Court, the traveling employee doctrine covered her case, and she was not limited to proving that her injury "arose out of her employment," a standard that would cut out COVID-19 infection that occurred in the course of "eating, sleeping, and ministering to personal needs away from home." Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the case.

Case

Azorit-Wotham v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., No. 103488-1 (Wash. 11/06/25)

What Happened?

A flight attendant claimed she contracted COVID-19 in March 2020 because of her employment and alleged that her illness met the definition of "occupational disease" under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act because she contracted COVID-19 either while working or while traveling because of work.

Following a jury trial, the trial court ruled that the traveling employee doctrine, which applies when a worker is injured while traveling for work, also applies when an employee contracts an occupational disease while traveling for work.

The trial court instructed the jury that coverage under the act included the time the flight attendant spent traveling for work and found in favor of the flight attendant.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in giving the traveling employee instruction, and the flight attendant appealed to Washington's Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Under Washington workers' compensation law, an occupational disease is a disease or infection that arises naturally and proximately out of the worker’s employment. A disease arises naturally out of employment if the disease comes about as a matter of course as a natural consequence of distinctive
conditions of the worker’s employment. It is not necessary that the conditions be peculiar to, or unique to, the particular employment. A disease does not arise naturally out of employment if it is caused by conditions of everyday life or of all employments in general.

A traveling employee in the State of Washington is subject to workers’ compensation coverage throughout the duration of the business trip, including during travel, hotel stays and meals at restaurants. Any occupational disease occurring during such business travel is covered by the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act.

Workers Comp 101: As detailed in Dennis v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 745 P.2d 1295 (Wash. 1987), in Washington, a worker must establish that her occupational disease came about as a matter of course as a natural consequence or incident of the distinctive conditions of her employment. To meet this requirement:

(1) The conditions need not be peculiar to, nor unique to, the worker's particular employment.

(2) The focus is on conditions giving rise to the occupational disease or the disease-based disability resulting from work-related aggravation of a network-related disease and not on whether the disease itself is common to that particular employment.

(3) In attempting to satisfy the "naturally" requirement, the worker must show that her particular work conditions more probably caused her disease or disease-based disability than conditions in everyday life or all employments in general.

(4) The disease or disease-based disability must be a natural incident of conditions of that worker's particular employment.

(5) The conditions causing the disease or disease-based disability must be conditions of employment, that is, conditions of the worker's particular occupation as opposed to conditions coincidentally occurring in their workplace.

What the Washington Supreme Cout Said

According to the court, the traveling employee doctrine "merely provides the time period for which there is insurance coverage for the employee" and "does not change the requirements for how an occupational disease is defined.

Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the traveling employee doctrine did not apply to occupational diseases.

"The trial court informed the jury of the definition of 'occupational disease,'" the court wrote. "The traveling employee instruction ... did not change or alter that definition. Instead, it provided the time period during which the employee ... would have insurance coverage under the act."

Verdict: The court reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals.

Takeaway

In Washington, the traveling employee doctrine applies when an employee contracts an occupational disease while traveling for work.

Share This Article: