Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 85A.11 (2026)

Diagnosis for brucellosis

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. If any employee is clinically diagnosed as having brucellosis, the employee shall not be considered to have the disease unless the clinical diagnosis is confirmed by either of the following:

a. A positive blood culture for brucella organisms.

b. A positive agglutination test which must be verified by not less than two successive positive agglutination tests, each of which tests shall be positive in a titer of one to one hundred sixty or higher. The subsequent agglutination tests must be made of specimens taken not less than seven nor more than ten days after each preceding test.

2. The specimens for the tests required by this section must be taken by a licensed practicing physician or osteopathic physician, and immediately delivered to the state hygienic laboratory. Each specimen shall be in a container upon which is plainly printed the name and address of the subject, the date when the specimen was taken, the name and address of the subject’s employer, and a certificate by the physician or osteopathic physician that the physician took the specimen from the named subject on the date stated over the physician’s signature and address.

3. The state hygienic laboratory shall immediately make the test and upon completion thereof it shall send a report of the result of such test to the physician or osteopathic physician from whom the specimen was received and also to the employer.

4. In the event of a dispute as to whether the employee has brucellosis, the matter shall be determined as any other disputed case. [C50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §85A.11] 2008 Acts, ch 1032, §201; 2010 Acts, ch 1069, §9; 2021 Acts, ch 80, §40; 2023 Acts, ch 19, §55 \n

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2009–2010 · leading case: IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210 (Iowa 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210 (Iowa 2010). · cites it 14× “Given the express reference to brucello-sis in the occupational disease statute, see Iowa Code § 85A.11, IBP had a reasonable basis to believe Burress’ brucellosis would be classified as an occupational disease and his claim dismissed because of the one- *223 year statute of…”

IBP, Inc. Vs. Lee Burress (Iowa 2010). · cites it 14× “Given the express reference to brucellosis in the occupational disease statute, see Iowa Code § 85A.11, IBP had a reasonable basis to believe Burress’ brucellosis would be classified as an occupational disease and his claim dismissed because of the one-year statute of 22 repose.”

Ibp, Inc. Vs. Lee Burress (Iowa 2009). · cites it 12× “Currently, chapter 85A makes reference to only two diseases, brucellosis in section 85A.11 and pneumoconiosis (the characteristic 3Iowa’s workers’ compensation statute, Iowa Code section 85.”

IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 776 N.W.2d 102 (Iowa 2009). · cites it 12× “Currently, chapter 85A makes reference to only two diseases, brucellosis in section 85A.11 and pneumoconiosis (the characteristic fibrotic condition of the lungs caused by the inhalation of dust particles) in section 85A.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.