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

The University of Michigan has formally denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal at the presidential level, further documenting its position regarding the withholding of records related to notice of a 2018 peer review evaluation.

The underlying FOIA request sought records reflecting notice of a 2018 peer review evaluation conducted by psychiatrist Dr. Kirk Brower involving Dr. Bradley Foerster. The University denied the request, asserting a “peer review exemption.”

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 stated in the original FOIA response.

The denial does not provide any independent analysis or additional explanation, instead adopting the original FOIA determination in full.

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

President Grasso Denies FOIA Appeal for Peer Review Notice

Notice Requirement Under Federal Law

The requested records concern notice of a 2018 peer review evaluation involving Dr. Bradley Foerster. Under federal law, including the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), professional review actions must include adequate notice to the physician subject to review.

Adequate notice includes informing the physician of:

the proposed action
the reasons for the action

This issue is addressed in detail in related reporting:
👉 University of Michigan Withholds Notice of 2018 Peer Review Evaluation and Forces Additional FOIA Request Over Delayed Appeal Response
👉 University of Michigan Confirms No Waiver of Peer Review Notice for Dr. Bradley Foerster

No notice of the 2018 peer review evaluation was ever provided to Dr. Bradley Foerster, raising questions as to whether any meaningful notice occurred.

The absence of any produced notice, combined with the University’s decision to withhold records relating to that notice, raises questions regarding compliance with federal procedural standards.

Delay in FOIA Appeal Responses

The administrative FOIA appeal in this matter was not resolved within the 10-business-day timeframe required under Michigan FOIA, resulting in a delayed presidential-level response.

A similar delay occurred in the prior FOIA appeal concerning the 2018 peer review evaluation record involving Dr. Bradley Foerster, where the appeal was likewise not resolved within the statutory timeframe.

In both instances, follow-up FOIA requests were required to obtain records relating to the delayed appeal responses, including documentation reflecting the timing and handling of the University’s determinations.

No Independent Review at Presidential Level

The Office of the President did not undertake a separate evaluation of the issues raised in the appeal, but instead affirmed the original FOIA response without modification.

As a result, the University’s position regarding the withholding of peer review notice records involving Dr. Bradley Foerster is now fully established at both the initial and appellate administrative levels.

Administrative Record Established

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

Denied the FOIA request for records related to the peer review notice involving Dr. Bradley Foerster
Asserted a peer review exemption to withhold those records
Issued a delayed denial of the administrative appeal at the presidential level

This sequence establishes a complete administrative record regarding the University’s position on the requested materials.

Summary of University FOIA Denials

Across related requests, the University of Michigan has now consistently denied access to multiple categories of records associated with the 2018 peer review evaluation of Dr. Bradley Foerster, including:

records reflecting notice of the peer review evaluation to Dr. Bradley Foerster
the 2018 peer review evaluation record itself
records reflecting the University’s decision and the basis for that decision as applied to Dr. Bradley Foerster

Each of these categories of records has been withheld under a “peer review exemption,” and each denial has been affirmed at the administrative appeal level, including after delayed responses requiring follow-up requests.

Taken together, these determinations reflect a complete institutional position regarding the non-disclosure of materials associated with the peer review process as it pertains to Dr. Bradley Foerster.

At the same time, federal law, including the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), establishes procedural standards for professional review actions, including requirements for adequate notice to the physician and articulation of the basis for actions affecting that physician.

The University’s position—denying access to notice, the underlying evaluation record, and the decision and its basis—raises questions as to whether the procedural safeguards afforded to Dr. Bradley Foerster under federal law have been satisfied.

These determinations also stand in tension with principles of transparency and accountability, particularly where institutional actions directly affect the professional standing and due process rights of the physician subject to review.

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 involving Dr. Bradley Foerster.

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

Taken together, the University’s denial of records relating to notice, the peer review evaluation itself, and the decision and its basis involving Dr. Bradley Foerster, combined with repeated delays in FOIA appeal responses beyond statutory timelines requiring follow-up requests, establishes a fully developed administrative record that now directly intersects with ongoing FOIA litigation concerning the same 2018 peer review process.

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.