Dr. Anita Louise Jackson, a Raleigh-area ear, nose and throat specialist once known for offering in-office sinus procedures, has officially lost her license to practice medicine in North Carolina after federal convictions for reusing single-use devices and defrauding Medicare. The state action comes on the heels of a federal trial, a lengthy prison sentence and appellate rulings that upheld every conviction, leaving patients from her clinics to navigate a thicket of criminal, civil and administrative proceedings tied to the same conduct.
The North Carolina Medical Board entered the revocation on Feb. 13, 2026, formally stripping Jackson of her privilege to practice in the state, according to the North Carolina Medical Board. The board's online actions log shows the move followed earlier notices and administrative filings that tracked alongside the federal criminal case.
Jackson was convicted on a 20-count superseding indictment and in June 2023 was sentenced to 300 months in prison and ordered to forfeit roughly $4.7 million, federal prosecutors said. Authorities say Jackson billed Medicare about $46 million for balloon sinuplasty procedures between 2014 and 2018 and performed more than 1,500 of the in-office surgeries while using, at most, 36 Entellus XprESS devices. Those figures and the sentence were detailed by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of North Carolina.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Jackson's challenges and affirmed her convictions in a January 2025 opinion that reviewed both the trial record and the jury instructions. The appellate panel found the government's evidence sufficient to show the devices were adulterated when reused and that Jackson profited by billing Medicare as if new devices had been used, according to Justia.
How prosecutors and the appeals court described the practice
Court records and federal filings paint a consistent picture of what was happening inside Jackson's offices. Staff repeatedly reused the fragile Entellus devices, cleaning parts by hand and holding onto instruments between cases instead of throwing them away. The Fourth Circuit noted that investigators found that "aged, used devices were being stored loose in drawers," and employees testified that many devices had rust on them or no longer operated smoothly. Prosecutors also say staff marketed the procedures as a "sinus spa" to attract Medicare beneficiaries and altered or backdated records in an effort to soften the blow of looming audits.
Legal and financial fallout
The convictions include counts for device adulteration, health-care fraud, aggravated identity theft, mail fraud and related conspiracy charges. The district court ordered forfeiture and left restitution to be determined after victims have a chance to submit claims. The U.S. Attorney's Office said the final restitution judgment will be entered after a 90-day period that allows victims to present loss claims and noted that related civil litigation remains pending. With the state board's revocation now in place, Jackson is barred from returning to medical practice in North Carolina while those federal and civil proceedings continue to play out.
What this means for patients and the profession
For former patients, the combination of criminal forfeiture, the restitution window and pending civil suits creates several potential paths to seek compensation or raise specific health-safety concerns tied to individual procedures. Legal analysts say the Fourth Circuit decision also tightens the scope of the so-called "practice of medicine" defense in FDA-related prosecutions, making it harder for clinicians to argue that in-office or off-label choices automatically neutralize adulteration claims; see a legal analysis for context. Regulators say the board's revocation is intended both to protect patients and to reinforce that single-use labels on medical devices have real safety and legal consequences.
Local coverage first noted the board's entry and its ripple effects, while court records and the U.S. Attorney's Office lay out the detailed evidence and rulings behind the revocation. The North Carolina Medical Board and the U.S. Attorney's Office have issued public statements on the case; additional comment was not immediately available beyond those releases.
