Skip to content
Photo of Krysten Rosen Moller

Krysten Rosen Moller

Krysten Rosen Moller focuses her practice on representing clients in internal investigations, government investigations, and follow-on civil litigation, with an emphasis on serving clients in the life sciences and healthcare industries.

Krysten assists companies with complex internal and government investigations covering a broad range of issues, including fraud and abuse, advertising and promotion, and bribery and corruption. Krysten has particular experience conducting targeted and efficient internal investigations and representing pharmaceutical and medical device companies against investigations from the Department of Justice or other government regulators. Krysten’s complementary litigation practice focuses on defending life sciences and healthcare companies in related litigation, including cases arising under the False Claims Act and other follow-on litigation arising from government investigations.

Krysten also counsels clients on compliance matters. She regularly represents companies negotiating HHS OIG Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIAs) and advises companies on implementing and operating under CIAs. She has also conducted False Claims Act risk assessments and advised on other fraud and abuse issues.

Now that the Trump Administration has cleared the six-month mark, its approach to white collar enforcement is starting to come into focus through multiple policy announcements and an emerging track record. After a flurry of policy announcements from Attorney General Pam Bondi in the early weeks of the new administration

Continue Reading DOJ White Collar Enforcement Six Months into the Trump Administration
When the United States government decides to intervene in False Claims Act litigation after initially declining intervention, it is not “déjà vu all over again.”  Instead, as one court has recognized, the “government is getting on a moving train,”[1] and it can only be permitted to “intervene at a


Continue Reading False Claims Act Update: District Court Rejects DOJ Motion to Intervene for Lack of “Good Cause”