The Washington Supreme Court and the Traveling Employee Doctrine – a Recent Case Sheds Light on the Scope and Application of This Doctrine
It is common for jobs to require employees to travel out of state for work. A Washington employee traveling for work is subject to workers’ compensation coverage if he or she is injured throughout the duration of the business trip, including during travel, hotel stays and meals at restaurants. The reasoning is the worker remains in the course of employment, as described by RCW 51.08.013, because the worker is acting at the employer’s direction or in the furtherance of the employer’s business.
Generally, this allows injurious events while traveling for work to become compensable as an industrial injury. Recently, a question arose as to whether the traveling employee doctrine similarly applies to occupational disease claims. A recent Washington Supreme Court case answers this question.
Azorit-Wortham v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 103488-1 (Wash. 2025) (en banc) involves a case where a flight attendant contracted COVID-19. In that case, the worker claimed that she likely contracted COVID-19 while traveling for work. The parties did not dispute the window for exposure. She was on eight different flights during the window for being exposed, four of which were transcontinental. She noted that passengers and crew did not wear masks and she only had contact with her husband and son outside of work during this window. The worker estimated she had come into close contact with fewer than 10 people during the time she was not working. The medical testimony supported claimant’s exposure to COVID-19 occurred during the course of her employment while traveling for work on a more-probable-than-not basis.
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.
The Department of Labor & Industries issued an Order allowing the claim as an occupational disease. The employer disputed claim compensability and argued that the doctrine applied to industrial injury cases only. After years of litigation, the matter eventually ended up before the Washington Supreme Court. The Court ultimately concluded the traveling employee doctrine applied to occupational disease claims as well. The Court reasoned the distinction between “in the course of employment” for industrial injuries versus the “arising out of” requirement for occupational diseases is immaterial when it comes to claim compensability.
When it comes to claim compensability, the rules around industrial injuries and occupational diseases are not always mutually exclusive. The traveling employee doctrine is one situation where these types of claims overlap. It is common to find case law that applies to an industrial injury but not an occupational disease and vice versa. It is important for you or your attorney to understand this nuance.
If you have any questions regarding the compensability of claims occurring out of state, please feel free to contact me at (503) 412-3105 or .
Posted by Omeed Ghaffari.
