Wisconsin Physician Clinic Agrees to False Claims Act Settlement Involving Ancillary Services, including Sanexas Device

On April 17, 2026, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin announced that an Appleton, Wisconsin physician clinic and its owner had agreed to pay $382,000 to resolve allegations that they violated the federal False Claims Act.

According to the government, the clinic billed Medicare for a series of services—including electrical muscle stimulation treatments, vitamin injections, and related procedures—that were not medically reasonable or necessary. Central to the case was the use of an electrical stimulation device marketed for pain relief: the RST Sanexas neoGEN-Series device developed by RST-Sanexas, Inc. The government alleged that the device was promoted and utilized for indications that fell outside its FDA clearance and contrary to applicable Medicare coverage rules. In particular, the DOJ pointed to longstanding coverage limitations that exclude certain electrical stimulation treatments furnished in outpatient settings.

Despite these limitations, the government alleged that the clinic represented that the services were reimbursable by Medicare and structured treatment protocols in a manner designed to maximize billing. RST previously agreed to pay $1.5 million to resolve their own liability

The total resolution amount—$382,362.95—was based in part on the defendants’ ability to pay, a factor that continues to play a role in FCA resolutions involving smaller providers.

Several recurring enforcement themes emerge from this matter:

• Medical Necessity Remains Paramount. Even where services are actually rendered, claims may be deemed false if the underlying treatment is not medically necessary under Medicare standards. This remains one of the most common (and heavily litigated) bases for FCA liability.
• Marketing Representations Can Drive Liability. The government’s allegations focused not only on billing practices, but also on how the services were marketed to patients and positioned as reimbursable. Representations regarding coverage—particularly when inconsistent with National or Local Coverage Determinations—can create significant exposure.
• Device-Based Protocols Are Under the Microscope. Arrangements involving medical devices, especially where providers also serve as distributors or promoters, present heightened risk. The intersection of financial incentives, off-label promotion, and standardized treatment protocols continues to draw scrutiny.
• Coordinated Enforcement Efforts Are Expanding. The resolution was part of a broader, multi-district enforcement initiative targeting electrical stimulation devices. This reflects an increasingly coordinated approach across U.S. Attorney’s Offices, Main Justice, and HHS-OIG.

GWB represents physicians and other healthcare providers in connection with government investigations and litigation as well as False Claims Act litigation. If you need assistance with such a matter, please contact us.