Foerster v. Cronin Aftermath (October 2018): Dismissal, Proposed Joint Legal Action Against UM Radiology, and Dispute Over Dr. Paul Cronin’s Filed Response

Record Context

On September 4, 2018, Dr. Bradley Foerster filed a federal complaint against Dr. Paul Cronin. The claims were dismissed on October 3, 2018, before Dr. Foerster received Dr. Cronin’s filed response, after Dr. Cronin agreed to come forward as a witness.

The underlying Foerster v. Cronin litigation and Dr. Cronin’s filed responses are documented separately in the archive.

What happened immediately afterward is preserved in the contemporaneous October 4–8, 2018 email thread reproduced below.

October 4, 2018 — One Day After the Dismissal

On October 4, Aine Kelly, Dr. Cronin’s wife, contacted counsel concerning a proposed meeting involving Dr. Cronin, Ms. Kelly, Duaa Altaee, Dr. Bradley Foerster, and Dr. Myria Petrou.

The correspondence concerned the possibility of the five participants pursuing legal action involving the University of Michigan Department of Radiology.

Ms. Kelly wrote that the group wanted to meet with counsel to discuss a potential lawsuit and identified Dr. Cronin as one of the five prospective participants, alongside Dr. Foerster, Dr. Petrou, Ms. Altaee, and herself.

October 4–8, 2018 — Coordinating with Counsel

The correspondence over the following days documents continued efforts to arrange the consultation.

The participants exchanged scheduling communications with counsel, discussed who would attend in person and by telephone, and worked toward a conference concerning potential legal action involving University of Michigan Radiology.

October 8, 2018 — Dr. Foerster Challenges Dr. Cronin’s Filed Response

By October 8, Dr. Foerster had obtained and reviewed Dr. Cronin’s filed response to the federal complaint.

Dr. Foerster then wrote directly to Dr. Cronin and challenged statements contained in that filing.

“I dismissed my court complaint as Act of Good Faith and Trust.”

— Dr. Bradley Foerster, October 8, 2018

Dr. Foerster also questioned whether statements in Dr. Cronin’s filed response were consistent with Dr. Cronin serving as a witness.

“Your statements at best show you to be an unreliable witness…”

— Dr. Bradley Foerster, October 8, 2018

Dr. Foerster challenged statements in Dr. Cronin’s filed response and sought clarification regarding what he viewed as inconsistencies in those statements. No response from Dr. Cronin to that request for clarification appears in the email thread reproduced here.

The Documentary Sequence

Read together with the federal court record, the email thread preserves a compact chronology:

September 4, 2018 — Dr. Foerster files Foerster v. Cronin.

October 3, 2018 — Dr. Foerster dismisses the claims before receiving Dr. Cronin’s filed response and Dr. Cronin agrees to come forward as a witness.

October 4, 2018 — Aine Kelly, Dr. Cronin’s wife, contacts counsel concerning a proposed meeting involving Dr. Cronin, Ms. Kelly, Duaa Altaee, Dr. Foerster, and Dr. Petrou regarding potential legal action involving the University of Michigan Department of Radiology.

October 4–8, 2018 — the participants continue coordinating the proposed consultation with counsel.

October 8, 2018 — after reviewing Dr. Cronin’s filed response, Dr. Foerster disputes statements in that filing and questions Dr. Cronin’s reliability as a prospective witness.

The thread therefore documents the progression from the dismissal of Foerster v. Cronin, to contemplated legal action in which Dr. Cronin was included alongside Dr. Foerster and the other participants, to a renewed dispute after Dr. Foerster reviewed Dr. Cronin’s formal court responses.