Before the Complete Hearing Transcript Was Available: University of Michigan Medical School Ad Hoc Committee Votes 5–0 to Recommend Dr. Bradley Foerster’s Dismissal; Neurosurgery Chair Karin Muraszko Moves for Termination Without a Terminal Year of Pay (2018)
On December 19, 2018, the University of Michigan Medical School Ad Hoc Committee issued its six-page report recommending the dismissal of Dr. Bradley Foerster.
The recommendation followed two separate unanimous votes taken after the final November 26 hearing.
In closed session, Dr. Richard Simon moved to recommend dismissal of Dr. Foerster. Dr. Phillip Rodgers seconded the motion. The five voting members voted 5–0 in favor of dismissal.
A second motion addressed the timing and terms of termination. Dr. Karin Muraszko, Chair of the University of Michigan Department of Neurosurgery, moved to recommend termination of Dr. Foerster “at the earliest possible date and without a terminal year of pay.” Dr. Lori Isom seconded the motion. The second motion also passed 5–0.
Dr. Carol Bradford chaired the Ad Hoc Committee but was identified in the report as ex officio and non-voting. The five voting members were Dr. Sally Camper, Dr. Lori Isom, Dr. Karin Muraszko, Dr. Phillip Rodgers, and Dr. Richard Simon.
The two unanimous votes occurred during the committee's closed-session deliberations following the November 26 hearing, before the complete hearing transcript was available.
The post-hearing procedure document subsequently provided to Dr. Foerster expressly permitted the committee to make its recommendation before the transcript was prepared. It separately required the complete transcript before the written report could be filed or transmitted.
Before addressing the individual subjects in its report, the committee stated that the evidence was “more than sufficient” to conclude that Dr. Foerster had failed to meet University standards of conduct and professionalism.
The committee concluded that Dr. Foerster had failed to engage members of the academic community professionally, hindered others in carrying out professional responsibilities, created a hostile working environment, demonstrated a pattern of behavior inconsistent with professional standards, and brought the University into disrepute.
Dean Marschall Runge's September 7 charge letter had organized the proposed dismissal case into four principal sections:
A. Dismissal from the Veterans Administration
B. R01 Grant
C. Unsupported, False, and/or Defamatory Allegations — University Matters
D. Improper Conduct in the Judicial System
The December 19 report did not return a charge-by-charge sustained or not-sustained determination under those four headings. Instead, the committee organized its reasoning into twelve numbered subjects.
The final two are notable because they addressed the committee's assessment of Dr. Foerster's defense during the proceedings themselves.
Finding 11 addressed what the committee characterized as Dr. Foerster's “incorrect and misleading characterization of the evidence.”
The committee criticized Dr. Foerster's use of the word “uncontested” during closing argument, stating that the characterization was misleading because the University had presented evidence that conflicted with Dr. Foerster's position.
Finding 12 was titled:
“Failure to take responsibility for his actions.”
The committee stated that Dr. Foerster had failed to accept responsibility, blamed others, and demonstrated insufficient “insight” and “remorse.”
The committee then made a prospective assessment:
“there is no reason to believe that this pattern of behavior would not continue.”
The committee's stated rationale therefore included not only findings concerning the conduct underlying Dean Runge's September charges, but also its assessment of how Dr. Foerster defended against those charges during the 5.09 proceedings.
Dr. Foerster's response to those findings would follow in the SACUA review.
The report does not identify a formal standard of evidence or burden of proof. It describes the evidence as “more than sufficient” and later states that the evidence “strongly supports” dismissal, but does not identify the evidentiary standard applied.
The report also does not provide a charge-by-charge disposition of Dean Runge's September 7 allegations. Rather than identifying individual charges as sustained, not sustained, or sustained in part, the committee presents broader conclusions followed by twelve numbered subjects.
Although the proceeding was conducted under Regents Bylaw 5.09, the report does not cite or quote the Bylaw in explaining the committee's findings or recommendation.
The report refers generally to evidence and testimony but does not identify the specific evidence supporting each of its findings.
At the conclusion of the report, the committee stated that Dr. Foerster had:
“not demonstrated the level of judgment and professionalism expected of a tenured faculty member at the University of Michigan.”
The committee concluded that the evidence:
“strongly supports the dismissal of Dr. Foerster at the earliest possible date and without an extension of pay.”
The report was signed by Dr. Bradford as chair of the Ad Hoc Committee and dated December 19, 2018.
December 19, 2018 — University of Michigan Medical School Ad Hoc Committee Final Report Concerning the Bylaw 5.09 Dismissal Proceedings for Dr. Bradley Foerster
Dean Runge wrote to Dr. Foerster the same day.
Runge stated that the Ad Hoc Committee had provided its report recommending dismissal. Runge then wrote:
“before I further consider the matter”
Dr. Foerster had the right under Bylaw 5.09 to request review by the SACUA tenure subcommittee.
Runge gave Dr. Foerster ten days to notify Runge in writing whether Dr. Foerster intended to request that review.
December 19, 2018 — Dean Marschall Runge Notifies Dr. Bradley Foerster of the Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation and Right to Request SACUA Review
The December 19 report constituted the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. Dr. Foerster's challenge to the committee's findings, evidence, and procedure would follow through the SACUA review process.
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.