“If He Was Even Asked to Testify”: Dr. Paul Cronin and the Missing Critical Witness in Dr. Bradley Foerster’s 5.09 Proceedings
Dr. Paul Cronin did not testify in the University of Michigan proceedings seeking the dismissal of tenured faculty member Dr. Bradley Foerster.
Dr. Cronin’s absence became a significant source of procedural and evidentiary asymmetry in the proceedings.
Dr. Cronin was a central figure in multiple consequential issues that had entered the 5.09 record. Dr. Cronin was identified as the source of the EPIC billing concerns. An unidentified individual known as “Nick,” who claimed to be a colleague of Dr. Cronin’s, alleged that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Myria Petrou were extorting Dr. Cronin over a sex scandal involving Dr. Petrou. Those allegations became part of the continuing AAPD criminal investigation and the resulting civil litigation later referenced in Charge 4 of Dean Marschall Runge’s dismissal charge letter.
Russia-related statements attributed to Dr. Cronin had also entered the 5.09 record. Dr. Cronin himself had been interviewed by an FBI Special Agent and an individual identifying himself as an HHS-OIG Special Agent at the University of Michigan in connection with matters involving Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou.
Yet the 5.09 decision-makers never heard directly from Dr. Cronin.
The documentary record also answers a question later raised by Dean Runge’s outside attorney, Mr. Daniel Tukel:
Was Dr. Cronin ever asked to testify?
He was.
September 2017 — The University States Its Expectation of Faculty Cooperation
More than a year before the 5.09 hearings, University of Michigan Vice President and General Counsel Timothy Lynch stated the University’s expectation regarding faculty participation in investigations.
In a September 27, 2017 email to Dr. Foerster, Mr. Lynch wrote:
“the University expects you to cooperate with any investigation of possible noncompliance and not to withhold relevant information.”
That provides an important institutional baseline for what followed.
OIE Contacts Dr. Cronin 18 Times Concerning “Nick”
The University’s own Office for Institutional Equity (OIE) record documents 18 attempts to obtain Dr. Cronin’s participation in the investigation concerning “Nick.” Dr. Cronin was not interviewed.
“Nick,” who claimed to be a colleague of Dr. Cronin’s, alleged that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou were extorting Dr. Cronin over a sex scandal involving Dr. Petrou. Those allegations became part of the continuing AAPD criminal investigation and the resulting civil litigation later referenced in Charge 4 of Dean Runge’s dismissal charge letter.
Why Dr. Cronin did not participate—and what Dr. Cronin knew about “Nick”—remained unanswered.
October 25, 2018 — Dr. Foerster Asks Dr. Cronin to Testify Under Oath
By October 2018, Dr. Foerster’s dismissal proceedings were underway.
On October 25, Dr. Foerster wrote directly to Dr. Cronin:
“You have been identified as a party of interest to provide witness testimony under oath.”
Dr. Foerster told Dr. Cronin:
“Your testimony is crucial to protect my employment rights and good name.”
Dr. Foerster identified the November 26 hearing date and stated that he intended to follow up with specific questions.
Dr. Cronin replied that afternoon:
“Hi Brad
I will check my schedule
Paul”
The contemplated follow-up questions have not presently been located.
But the central fact is clear:
Dr. Foerster asked Dr. Cronin to testify under oath, and Dr. Cronin acknowledged the request.
Dr. Cronin did not testify.
Dr. Foerster Then Seeks Interrogatories
The witness issue continued during Dr. Foerster’s appeal to the University of Michigan Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) Review Committee.
Dr. Foerster sought permission to serve written interrogatories on witnesses. Dean Runge’s outside attorney, Mr. Daniel Tukel, objected.
Mr. Tukel wrote:
“The Review and Scheduling Order issued by the Sub-Committee does not provide for any such interrogatories, and the University objects to the use of interrogatories to witnesses.”
During the May 1, 2019 SACUA Review Committee hearing, Dr. Foerster expressly connected the interrogatory issue to the absence of direct witness testimony:
“The fact that I was not allowed to serve interrogatories was not addressed. The fact that there was no direct witness testimony to substantiate many of the charges used for my termination was not addressed.”
SACUA Examines Dr. Cronin’s Role in the EPIC Reporting
The May 1 hearing repeatedly returned to the source of the EPIC billing concerns.
Dr. Foerster testified that he had known Dr. Cronin for more than ten years, considered Dr. Cronin a trustworthy source, and took seriously concerns Dr. Cronin repeatedly raised with him.
Committee member Donald Freeman then asked:
“Did you feel that Dr. Cronin wouldn't report that if you didn't join him?”
Dr. Foerster answered:
“He asked me specifically. He said ‘I need your support in order to push this forward’, because he was concerned of retaliation by Dr. Ella Kazerooni.”
That testimony concerned the EPIC reporting context. It does not establish Dr. Cronin’s reasons for his participation or nonparticipation concerning “Nick,” Russia-Gate, or other matters.
The Committee later returned directly to the question of firsthand knowledge. Mr. Freeman interrupted the discussion to ask:
“Paul Cronin was the person who had direct knowledge of the EPIC billing issues?”
Dr. Foerster answered:
“That's correct.”
Chair Karen Staller immediately contrasted that testimony with the Hall Render report, which stated that none of the complainants claimed direct knowledge. Dr. Foerster disputed that account and pointed the Committee to Dr. Petrou’s underlying Hall Render interview.
Dr. Foerster further stated that he had requested Dr. Petrou’s Hall Render transcript but had not received it, and told the Committee that Mr. Tukel or the Office of General Counsel possessed it.
“We Have Nothing From Dr. Cronin Himself”
Mr. Tukel then made Dr. Cronin’s absence part of the University’s argument.
Mr. Tukel told the Committee that statements Dr. Foerster attributed to Dr. Cronin were unsupported by evidence other than Dr. Foerster’s account. Mr. Tukel further represented that, during the Hall Render investigation, Dr. Cronin had denied initiating the fraud allegations and instead attributed their initiation to Dr. Foerster.
Mr. Tukel emphasized:
“we have nothing from Dr. Cronin himself”
and continued:
“he didn't testify, he didn't submit an affidavit”
The factual conflict was therefore direct.
Dr. Foerster testified that Dr. Cronin had supplied the underlying information and specifically asked for his support. Mr. Tukel represented that Hall Render reflected a contrary account from Dr. Cronin.
Dr. Cronin himself was not there to resolve that conflict.
“If He Was Even Asked to Testify”
Mr. Tukel then addressed why Dr. Cronin might not have testified.
After referring to Dr. Foerster’s account that Dr. Cronin was concerned about retaliation by Dr. Kazerooni, Mr. Tukel argued:
“I think it's equally likely or perhaps more likely that the reason — if he was even asked to testify and we don't know whether he was — that he didn't testify is because Dr. Foerster sued him.”
The contemporaneous correspondence answers one part of that statement.
Dr. Cronin was asked to testify.
Dr. Foerster expressly asked Dr. Cronin to provide testimony under oath at the November 26 hearing, and Dr. Cronin responded that he would check his schedule.
The correspondence does not establish why Dr. Cronin ultimately did not testify.
But whether Dr. Cronin was asked is not an open question.
“No Written Statement, No Affidavit, No Recorded Statement, Nothing”
Mr. Tukel later returned to the absence of evidence directly from Dr. Cronin.
Mr. Tukel argued that witnesses who could not appear live could have supplied affidavits or recorded statements and specifically noted that Dr. Foerster had submitted such material from Dr. Petrou.
Mr. Tukel then stated:
“Nothing from Dr. Cronin was submitted no written statement, no affidavit, no recorded statement, nothing.”
The 5.09 decision-makers therefore confronted significant factual disputes involving Dr. Cronin without receiving Dr. Cronin’s own testimony, affidavit, or recorded statement.
What Could Dr. Cronin Have Addressed?
The specific follow-up questions Dr. Foerster stated he intended to send Dr. Cronin have not presently been located. But the record itself shows why Dr. Cronin’s testimony mattered.
EPIC billing. What evidence did Dr. Cronin possess? What did Dr. Cronin tell Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou? Did Dr. Cronin ask Dr. Foerster to support him because of concerns about retaliation by Dr. Kazerooni?
Hall Render. What did Dr. Cronin tell the investigators? Did Dr. Cronin tell Hall Render that Dr. Foerster originated the allegations, as Mr. Tukel represented to SACUA?
OIE and “Nick.” Why did Dr. Cronin not participate despite OIE’s 18 documented attempts to obtain his participation? What did Dr. Cronin know about the unidentified individual claiming to be his colleague, the extortion allegations involving Dr. Cronin, and the related AAPD investigation and litigation?
The FBI/HHS-OIG interview. Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou’s April 2019 affidavits stated that Dr. Cronin told them he had been interviewed by an FBI Special Agent and an individual identifying himself as an HHS-OIG Special Agent at the University of Michigan. Dr. Cronin was not present to confirm, deny, or explain those statements.
Russia-Gate. Russia-related statements attributed to Dr. Cronin had entered the 5.09 record, and Foerster v. Cronin became Ad Hoc Committee Exhibit 39. Mr. Tukel expressly identified that litigation as Exhibit 39 during his argument to the SACUA Review Committee. Did Dr. Cronin make the statements attributed to him? What did Dr. Cronin say, when did Dr. Cronin say it, and what was the basis for those statements?
These questions do not presume Dr. Cronin’s answers.
They show why Dr. Cronin’s testimony mattered.
The Unanswered Question
The documentary sequence is striking.
The University stated that faculty were expected to cooperate with investigations. In the OIE investigation concerning “Nick,” the University’s own record documented 18 attempts to obtain Dr. Cronin’s participation, but Dr. Cronin was not interviewed. The “Nick” allegations became part of the continuing AAPD criminal investigation and the resulting litigation later referenced in Charge 4 of Dean Runge’s dismissal charge letter.
Dr. Foerster later expressly asked Dr. Cronin to testify under oath in the 5.09 proceeding. Dr. Cronin acknowledged the request but did not testify. Dr. Foerster then sought interrogatories of witnesses, and Dean Runge’s outside attorney, Mr. Tukel, objected to their use.
Before the SACUA Review Committee, Mr. Tukel relied on the absence of testimony, an affidavit, or a recorded statement from Dr. Cronin to challenge Dr. Foerster’s account—and questioned “if he was even asked to testify.”
The October 25, 2018 correspondence answers that question.
He was.
What the 5.09 proceedings never resolved was the more important question:
What would Dr. Paul Cronin have said under oath?
Subsequent Employment
The subsequent employment outcomes diverged.
In June 2019, Dr. Ella Kazerooni accepted Dr. Bradley Foerster’s resignation from the University of Michigan with a “do not rehire” designation.
In August 2019, Dr. Paul Cronin resigned from the University of Michigan and joined Emory University. He was subsequently promoted to full professor.
Related record:
“Paul Cronin Was the Source”: Dr. Myria Petrou’s EPIC Medical Billing Affidavits and SACUA’s Statement That She Was “Not” Under Oath
Dr. Petrou independently documented Dr. Cronin’s role in the EPIC medical billing concerns in affidavits executed before the SACUA review. The related post examines those affidavits and the May 1, 2019 SACUA exchange concerning their evidentiary character.
September 13, 2026 — President Trump Notified
On September 13, 2026, Dr. Foerster submitted an update to President Donald Trump concerning Foerster v. U.S. Department of Justice, the Russia-Gate record, and the unresolved question of whether Dr. Paul Cronin has ever been asked to affirm or deny the Russia-Gate statements attributed to him.
The submission specifically directed attention to Dr. Foerster’s September 1, 2018 sworn affidavit, his documented request that Dr. Cronin testify under oath, and the subsequent SACUA record concerning Dr. Cronin’s absence.
Selected Documentary Record
The following records document Dr. Cronin’s role in the issues before the 5.09 decision-makers, Dr. Foerster’s request that Dr. Cronin testify, and the later discussion of Dr. Cronin’s absence during the SACUA Review Committee hearing.
September 27, 2017 — University Expectation of Faculty Cooperation
University of Michigan Vice President and General Counsel Timothy Lynch advised Dr. Foerster that “the University expects you to cooperate with any investigation of possible noncompliance and not to withhold relevant information.”
October 25, 2018 — Dr. Foerster Asks Dr. Cronin to Testify Under Oath
Dr. Foerster advised Dr. Cronin that he had been identified as a party of interest to provide testimony under oath at the November 26 hearing and stated that Dr. Cronin’s testimony was “crucial to protect my employment rights and good name.”
Page 1 — Request for Witness Testimony Under Oath
October 25, 2018 correspondence requesting Dr. Paul Cronin’s testimony under oath.
October 25, 2018 — Dr. Cronin Responds
Dr. Cronin acknowledged the request that afternoon:
“Hi Brad
I will check my schedule
Paul”
Page 2 — Dr. Cronin Acknowledges the Request
October 25, 2018 correspondence documenting Dr. Cronin’s acknowledgment of Dr. Foerster’s request that he testify under oath.
Mr. Daniel Tukel Objects to Interrogatories
During the subsequent SACUA review, Dr. Foerster sought permission to serve written interrogatories on witnesses. Dean Runge’s outside attorney, Mr. Daniel Tukel, objected:
“The Review and Scheduling Order issued by the Sub-Committee does not provide for any such interrogatories, and the University objects to the use of interrogatories to witnesses.”
May 1, 2019 — Selected SACUA Review Committee Testimony
The May 1, 2019 transcript documents the Review Committee’s examination of Dr. Cronin’s role in the EPIC reporting and Mr. Tukel’s subsequent reliance on the absence of testimony, an affidavit, or a recorded statement from Dr. Cronin.
Transcript Pages 172–173 — “I Need Your Support in Order to Push This Forward”
Dr. Foerster testified that he had known Dr. Cronin for more than ten years, regarded Dr. Cronin as a trustworthy source, and took seriously concerns that Dr. Cronin repeatedly raised. Committee member Donald Freeman then asked whether Dr. Foerster believed Dr. Cronin would not report the matter without Dr. Foerster joining him. Dr. Foerster responded that Dr. Cronin had specifically asked for his support and attributed that request to concern about retaliation by Dr. Ella Kazerooni.
Transcript Pages 223–224 — Dr. Cronin Identified as the Person With Direct Knowledge
Mr. Freeman returned directly to the source of the EPIC allegations and asked whether Dr. Cronin was the person who had direct knowledge of the billing issues. Dr. Foerster answered, “That’s correct.” Chair Karen Staller then contrasted that testimony with the Hall Render report, and Dr. Foerster directed the Committee to Dr. Petrou’s underlying Hall Render interview, which Dr. Foerster stated he had requested but had not received.
Page 223 — “Paul Cronin Was the Person Who Had Direct Knowledge”
May 1, 2019 SACUA Review Committee transcript, page 223.
Page 224 — Hall Render Report and Dr. Petrou’s Underlying Interview
May 1, 2019 SACUA Review Committee transcript, page 224.
Transcript Pages 69–70 — “If He Was Even Asked to Testify”
Mr. Tukel argued that the statements attributed to Dr. Cronin were unsupported by evidence directly from Dr. Cronin and emphasized that Dr. Cronin had neither testified nor submitted an affidavit. Mr. Tukel then questioned whether Dr. Cronin had even been asked to testify:
“if he was even asked to testify and we don't know whether he was”
Mr. Tukel also identified Foerster v. Cronin as Ad Hoc Committee Exhibit 39. The October 25, 2018 correspondence reproduced above documents that Dr. Foerster had, in fact, expressly asked Dr. Cronin to testify under oath.
Transcript Page 94 — “No Written Statement, No Affidavit, No Recorded Statement, Nothing”
Mr. Tukel later noted that affidavits and recorded statements could be submitted by witnesses who did not appear live and specifically acknowledged that Dr. Foerster had submitted such material from Dr. Petrou. Mr. Tukel then returned to Dr. Cronin:
“Nothing from Dr. Cronin was submitted no written statement, no affidavit, no recorded statement, nothing.”
May 1, 2019 SACUA Review Committee transcript, page 94.
September 13, 2026 — President Trump Alerted to the Cronin Witness Record
On September 13, 2026, Dr. Foerster submitted an update to President Donald Trump concerning Foerster v. U.S. Department of Justice, the underlying Russia-Gate record, and Dr. Foerster’s documented efforts to obtain Dr. Paul Cronin’s testimony.
September 13, 2026 submission alerting President Trump to the current Foerster v. DOJ litigation status, the 2018 sworn Russia-Gate record, and the documented efforts to obtain Dr. Cronin’s testimony.
Related Documentary Records
Presents Dr. Foerster’s September 1, 2018 sworn affidavit documenting Russia-Gate-related statements attributed to Dr. Cronin.
Presents selected later civil-case responses by Dr. Paul Cronin concerning several of the same subjects on which Dr. Cronin did not testify during Dr. Foerster’s 5.09 proceedings.
Presents selected responses attributed to Dr. Cronin and Dr. Aine Kelly in the civil litigation, alongside related allegations and documentary records involving Dr. Petrou and Dr. Foerster.
5.09 Documentary Chronology
← Previous
|
Return to 5.09 Documentary Chronology
|
Next →
Selected Reporting
- Bradley Foerster Submits 140-Exhibit, 1,121-Page Documentary Chronology to FBI for Supervisory Review of the Investigation Involving Dr. Bradley Foerster, Dr. Myria Petrou, and Duaa Altaee
- From One FBI File to a Legislative Proposal: Peter and Maria Foerster Ask Senator Van Hollen's Office and Congressman Jamie Raskin to Consider a Uniform Administrative Framework for Federal Investigations
- Eva Feldman Documentary Chronology: 139 Exhibits on NIH R01NS082304, University Proceedings, and Federal Investigation — No Response Received
- Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Send Ann Arbor Officials Documentary Chronology on AAPD and Related Federal Investigations — No Response Received
- Timothy Lynch Documentary Chronology: 63 Exhibits on University of Michigan Office of General Counsel, University Investigations, and Law Enforcement — No Response Received
- Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Documentary Chronology: 8 Exhibits Document More Than Two Years of Efforts to Trace Bank of Ann Arbor's $1.4 Million Sheriff's Sale Credit Bid — No Response Received
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 a member of the Montgomery County Medical Society and the Takoma Park U.S. & World History Book Club.