Landmark ruling could mean new HR risks and responsibilities for companies with traveling staff
Washington’s top court just expanded workers’ comp: travel for work could mean coverage for diseases like COVID-19, not just injuries.
Lisa M. Azorit-Wortham, a flight attendant for Alaska Airlines, claimed she contracted COVID-19 in March 2020 because of her employment. During the relevant period, she flew on eight flights, including four transcontinental trips, at a time when neither passengers nor crew were required to wear masks to prevent transmission. She testified that, outside of work, her only close contacts were her husband and son, and she estimated she had come into close contact with fewer than 10 people while not working.
After testing positive for COVID-19, Azorit-Wortham filed a workers’ compensation claim, arguing her illness met the definition of an “occupational disease” under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act. The Department of Labor and Industries granted her claim. Alaska Airlines appealed, and an administrative law judge concluded that her illness did not qualify as an occupational disease and reversed the Department’s decision. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals upheld the administrative law judge’s ruling.
Azorit-Wortham then appealed to the Pierce County Superior Court. The jury, instructed that the Industrial Insurance Act could provide coverage for occupational diseases contracted during work travel if statutory requirements were met, found in her favor. Alaska Airlines objected to the jury instruction regarding the traveling employee doctrine, arguing it conflicted with the definition of occupational disease and should not apply to such cases.
The Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s verdict, holding that the traveling employee doctrine does not apply to occupational diseases. The appellate court reasoned that, while the doctrine covers injuries during work travel, it should not extend to diseases, which must arise out of distinctive conditions of employment and not from conditions of everyday life.
On November 6, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals. The justices held that the traveling employee doctrine does apply to occupational diseases, provided the statutory definition is satisfied. The court clarified that the doctrine determines the period of coverage – meaning employees are covered while traveling for work – but the illness must still meet the requirements of an occupational disease, specifically that it arises naturally and proximately out of employment.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict in favor of Azorit-Wortham.
This case highlights the importance of understanding how workers’ compensation laws may apply to employees who travel for work, especially regarding communicable diseases. The outcome may influence workplace policies, risk management, and compliance strategies for organizations with traveling employees.
While the final outcome for Azorit-Wortham is pending further proceedings, the Washington Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that workers’ compensation coverage for occupational diseases can extend to employees during work-related travel, provided legal requirements are met. This development is particularly relevant for HR teams managing mobile workforces and workplace health policies.
