Case Citator › United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah

United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
472 F.3d 702
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
40 of 40
Citing cases (total)
40
Treatment dates
2007–2021
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah was abrogated on its False Claims Act filing-deadline rule. The Supreme Court held in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt that the extended limitations period applies to private suits even when the government does not intervene.
More on how this was screened

Sikkenga's other rules continue to be cited. All 40 flagged citations have been read; the 3 confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

40 later cases cite United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah; 40 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Sikkenga's rule that the extended False Claims Act limitations period is unavailable to private relators when the government does not intervene.

    Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    *Compare 887 F. 3d 1081, 1089–1097 (CA11 2018) (adopting the third interpretation), with United States ex rel. Hyatt v. Northrop Corp., 91 F. 3d 1211, 1216–1218 (CA9 1996) (adopting the second interpretation); United States ex rel. Sanders v. North Am. Bus Industries, Inc., 546 F. 3d 288, 293–294 (CA4 2008) (adopting the first interpretation); and United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield of Utah, 472 F. 3d 702, 725–726 (CA10 2006) (same). ... Government-initiated suits under §3730(a) and relator-initiated suits under §3730(b) are “civil action[s] under section 3730.” Thus, the plain text of the statute makes the two limitations periods applicable in both types of suits.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The District of Columbia court rejected Sikkenga's filing-deadline rule and held that the extended period applies to private relators.

    United States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc. · District of Columbia · filed

    The Tenth Circuit, clearly concerned that extension of the tolling provision would allow relators to sit back and pile up claims, opined that § 3731(b)(2) “was not intended to apply to private qui tam relators at all.” ... The Court thus holds that § 3731(b)(2) unambiguously applies to relators and that the three-year statute of limitations is to be measured, as the statute says, from the date the relevant government official knows or should know of the facts relevant to the cause of action.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The District of Utah court criticized Sikkenga's reliance on legislative history in its discussion of False Claims Act retaliation, and applied a but-for causation standard.

    United States ex rel. Barrick v. Parker-Migliorini International, LLC · District of Utah · filed

    The Tenth Circuit has twice cited this legislative history in ruling on FCA retaliation claims: United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield of Utah, 472 F.3d 702, 729 (10th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, 139 S. Ct. 1507 (2019); United States ex rel. Erickson v. Uintah Special Servs. Dist., 268 F. App’x 714, 716 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). ... This reliance upon legislative history is misplaced when the plain meaning of “because of,” as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is “but-for.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace