University of Michigan Withholds 2018 Peer Review Evaluation Record, Denies FOIA Appeal After Delayed Presidential Review

The University of Michigan has now formally denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal at the presidential level, further documenting the University’s position regarding access to a 2018 peer review evaluation record.

The appeal, submitted following the University’s initial denial of a FOIA request for the 2018 peer review evaluation record, was reviewed by the Office of the President and rejected without additional substantive explanation, relying entirely on the original denial issued by the FOIA office.

Presidential-Level Denial Confirms Institutional Position

In a letter dated March 24, 2026, Steve Yaros, Chief of Staff to President Domenico Grasso, issued a formal denial of the appeal. The response states that the appeal was “carefully considered” but ultimately denied for the same reasons previously asserted by the University’s FOIA office.

Notably, the letter does not provide any independent analysis or new justification, instead affirming the original decision in full and declining to engage with the substantive legal and procedural issues raised in the appeal.

Delay in Presidential FOIA Appeal Response

Under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, a public body is required to respond to a FOIA appeal within 10 business days. The University’s response to this appeal was issued beyond that required timeframe, resulting in a delayed presidential-level determination.

Following this delay, an additional FOIA request was submitted seeking records related to the timing and handling of the presidential appeal response, including any documentation explaining the delayed decision.

No Independent Review Provided at Presidential Level

The denial confirms that the Office of the President did not undertake a separate or independent evaluation of the issues presented in the appeal, but instead adopted the original FOIA determination without modification.

As a result, the University’s position regarding the withholding of the 2018 peer review evaluation record is now fully established across both the initial FOIA response and the administrative appeal process.

Due Process and Access to the 2018 Peer Review Evaluation Record

The withheld record is a 2018 peer review evaluation record conducted while the subject was on approved medical disability. Federal law, including the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, provides physicians with procedural protections, including notice and access to the underlying record.

This issue is addressed in detail in the underlying FOIA request and appeal:
👉 FOIA Request and Appeal for 2018 Peer Review Evaluation Record

The continued refusal to disclose this 2018 peer review evaluation record—now affirmed at the highest administrative level—raises questions regarding compliance with federal due process standards governing peer review proceedings.

Administrative Record Now Complete

With the denial of the FOIA appeal, the University has now:

Denied the initial FOIA request for the 2018 peer review evaluation record
Asserted a peer review exemption to withhold the record
Issued a delayed denial of the administrative appeal at the presidential level
Prompted an additional FOIA request regarding the delayed response

This sequence of actions establishes a complete administrative record, including both the University’s substantive position and the procedural handling of the appeal.

\

Exhibit – Presidential FOIA Appeal Denial

Official response from the University of Michigan Office of the President denying the FOIA appeal and affirming the prior FOIA determination.

Key language from the denial: the appeal was “carefully considered” but denied based on the original FOIA response, with no additional analysis provided at the presidential level.

Related FOIA Litigation

The University’s peer review decision and the basis for that decision are the subject of a separately litigated FOIA appeal, addressing the underlying record and rationale associated with the 2018 peer review process.

👉 FOIA Appeal Litigation – University Peer Review Decision and Basis for Decision

Related Reporting

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.