University of Michigan Withholds Notice of 2018 Peer Review Evaluation and Forces Additional FOIA Request Over Delayed Appeal Response
No notice was ever provided regarding a 2018 peer review evaluation conducted by psychiatrist Dr. Kirk Brower while the Dr. Bradley Foerster was on approved medical leave, raising concerns under federal disability and due process protections.
After discovering that the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) requires notice to the physician, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was submitted to the University of Michigan seeking records related to the peer review notice. The University denied the request, citing a “peer review exemption.”
Withholding a Notice Raises Basic Due Process Questions
This denial presents two fundamental issues.
First, a notice—by definition—is intended to inform the physician subject to review. In this case, no notice of the 2018 peer review evaluation was ever received, raising questions as to whether any meaningful notice was provided at all.
Second, the failure to produce a notice implicates federal due process standards governing professional review actions.
HCQIA Requires Adequate Notice
Under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), professional review actions must satisfy specific procedural requirements, including the provision of adequate notice.
42 U.S.C. § 11112 – Standards for Professional Review Actions
- (1) in the reasonable belief that it furthers quality health care;
- (2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts;
- (3) after adequate notice and hearing procedures are afforded to the physician; and
- (4) in the reasonable belief that the action is warranted by the known facts.
The statute further provides that adequate notice includes informing the physician of:
- the proposed action; and
- the reasons for the action.
No such notice of the 2018 peer review evaluation was ever provided.
Delayed Appeal Response Prompted Additional FOIA Request
An administrative FOIA appeal of the University’s denial was submitted to President Grasso. That appeal was not resolved within the timeframe required under Michigan FOIA, and no timely response was issued.
As a result, a separate FOIA request was required to obtain records concerning the delayed appeal response, including documentation reflecting the timing and handling of the President’s determination.
This additional request was necessary to compel clarification of both the procedural handling of the FOIA appeal and the University’s position regarding the peer review notice.
FOIA Denial for Dr. Bradley Foerster's Peer Review Notice
.png "FOIA Appeal to President Grasso for Bradley Foerster's Peer Review Notice")
Related Reporting
- The Institutional Fingerprint of the FBI Russia-Gate File
- May 12, 2026 Joint Status Report Filed After FBI Missed May 4 Production Deadline in “Russia-Gate” FOIA Litigation; New Production Dates Set for May 15 and June 16, 2026
- University of Michigan States No Responsive Documents Exist Regarding Dr. Foerster’s 2018 Psychiatric Peer Review Following Litigated FOIA Appeal
- Bank of Ann Arbor Reported $1,412,380 Sheriff's Sale Purchase; Follow-Up RESPA Request Seeks Reconciliation Record
Brad Foerster, MD PhD
Brad Foerster is a FOIA advocate documenting requests, transparency disputes, and accountability investigations involving public agencies, universities, police oversight, and Russia-Gate related inquiries. His work compiles original documents, timelines, and analysis of public records and institutional responses. Brad is also a board-certified radiologist, author of Town & Gown, and has published over 40 peer-reviewed articles. Brad lives in Potomac, Maryland with his family and is active in the Montgomery County Medical Society and the Takoma Park U.S. & World History Book Club.