“Although They Are Marked as ‘Draft,’ They Are the Only Reports”: University of Michigan Used Hall Render’s Unsigned EPIC and NIH-Grant Reports Against Dr. Bradley Foerster in Unprecedented Tenure-Dismissal Proceedings
On October 24, 2026, Dr. Bradley Foerster submitted a complaint to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General seeking independent review of two investigations that the University of Michigan Office of the Vice President and General Counsel assigned to Hall Render in 2017 .
One investigation addressed radiology medical-billing concerns reported by Drs. Paul Cronin, Aine Kelly, Myria Petrou, and Bradley Foerster. The other addressed concerns that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou reported about the performance and administration of Dr. Foerster’s NIH grant, R01NS082304.
The HHS-OIG complaint asks whether Hall Render adequately investigated the reported concerns, whether Hall Render used protected reporting activity to discredit the reporting faculty members, and how the University later used Hall Render’s findings against Dr. Foerster.
This post publishes the records at the center of those questions.
Hall Render delivered the EPIC medical-billing report on November 2, 2017, and the NIH-grant report on November 3, 2017.
The University hired Hall Render as outside counsel and directed both investigations through the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel. Hall Render addressed both reports to that office and designated them attorney work product.
Every page of both investigative reports is labeled “DRAFT.” Neither report is signed.
Dr. Foerster repeatedly requested the reports from University Vice President and General Counsel Timothy Lynch and Deputy General Counsel Kara Morgenstern. The University did not provide the reports.
Outside attorney Daniel Tukel finally disclosed the Hall Render materials on November 1, 2018—11 days before Hall Render attorney David French testified during Dr. Foerster’s Bylaw 5.09 hearing. The Hall Render materials comprised the only two of the Medical School’s 55 exhibits provided to Dr. Foerster before the hearings.
After receiving the reports, Dr. Foerster again asked for the final versions. Tukel replied:
“Although they are marked as ‘draft’ they are the only reports.”
The University nevertheless treated the unsigned draft reports as completed investigations and used them against Dr. Foerster during the dismissal proceedings.
Drs. Cronin, Kelly, Petrou, and Foerster reported concerns about radiology medical billing. Hall Render interviewed approximately 25 people, reviewed documents and prior University analyses, examined the EPIC ordering process, and obtained an outside review of selected 3D-reformatting claims.
Hall Render rejected the allegation that the Department of Radiology systematically used EPIC to commit widespread billing fraud. The complete report nevertheless documented actual billing and coding problems:
- A University compliance review found a 99 percent error rate in the accuracy of diagnosis codes associated with selected 3D-reconstruction claims. Hall Render characterized the errors as technical coding violations and stated that the errors did not result in a payment differential. (EPIC Report, PDF p. 17.)
- The University implemented an EPIC edit, educated coding staff, and temporarily required coder review of every applicable 3D claim. (EPIC Report, PDF p. 17.)
- The University had billed research imaging to patients’ insurers in cases where the research grant should have paid the charges. (EPIC Report, PDF pp. 19–21.)
- The University issued refunds after identifying research-billing errors. (EPIC Report, PDF p. 21.)
- In January 2017, the University mistakenly billed a radiology procedure involving Dr. Foerster’s NIH grant, R01NS082304, to a patient’s commercial insurer. Ian Crumb reported the error, and the University corrected the charges. (EPIC Report, PDF p. 21.)
The two-page executive summary did not disclose those findings. Instead, Hall Render referred generally to the potential for “one-off errors or mix ups” and emphasized that the allegations had “no owner.” Hall Render stated that the reporting faculty members’ conduct “undercut the veracity” of the allegations. (EPIC Executive Summary, PDF p. 2.)
Hall Render cited unrelated reports made by Dr. Petrou as evidence of a purported “pattern of behavior,” while acknowledging that those matters were outside the medical-billing investigation. (EPIC Report, PDF p. 7.)
Hall Render then questioned whether the allegations reported by Drs. Foerster, Petrou, Cronin, and Kelly had been made in bad faith or with reckless disregard for the truth. The report also referenced a separate memorandum concerning possible defamation claims and employment action, without identifying the proposed target or targets. (EPIC Report, PDF p. 10.)
The investigation had shifted from the reported billing practices to the credibility and employment of the reporters—including Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou.
The released report also conceals much of Hall Render’s legal analysis through extensive redactions. The University has not released the separate memorandum addressing possible defamation claims and employment action.
Hall Render separately investigated concerns reported by Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou about Dr. Robert Welsh’s performance and the administration of NIH grant R01NS082304.
Hall Render interviewed 27 people, consulted two outside experts, reviewed documents, directed the University’s Internal Audit group to examine grant finances, and relied on findings from the University’s Office of Research Compliance Review.
Hall Render concluded that the investigation had not found substantial evidence that Dr. Welsh committed fraud or that the University covered up fraud. Hall Render accepted the outside experts’ assessment that Dr. Welsh’s reported work appeared reasonable.
The experts reviewed the grant, annual progress reports, selected documents, Dr. Welsh’s descriptions of his work, and statements from Dr. Foerster. Hall Render relied on financial figures developed by the University’s Internal Audit group at Hall Render’s request and direction.
The financial analysis attributed approximately $223,800 to Dr. Welsh’s research team, including approximately $83,000 in salary paid directly to Dr. Welsh. The report acknowledged that the total excluded approximately $25,066 paid to two laboratory assistants because the audit could not determine how to allocate that expense. (NIH Grant Executive Summary, PDF pp. 2–3.)
Hall Render’s executive summary also expressly referenced the HHS-OIG investigation. Hall Render stated that an OIG Special Agent contacted the University on October 27, 2017, “referencing a Dr. Foerster case.” Hall Render issued the report one week later. (NIH Grant Executive Summary, PDF p. 1.)
Hall Render expanded the investigation beyond Dr. Welsh’s work into Dr. Foerster’s administration of the clinical study, data access, IRB matters, research records, Ms. Duaa Altaee’s salary and work effort, University arbitration proceedings, and Dr. Foerster’s credibility.
Hall Render’s executive summary used footnotes to scrutinize Ms. Altaee, the clinical research coordinator whose sexual-harassment complaint Dr. Foerster had supported. The summary highlighted the approximately $186,550 paid to Ms. Altaee and Ms. Altaee’s absence from interviews while also documenting that Ms. Altaee was on medical leave for work-related post-traumatic stress disorder and had invoked FMLA protections. (NIH Grant Executive Summary, PDF pp. 2, 4.)
Hall Render then imported findings from two other University-controlled proceedings.
First, the report stated that Ms. Altaee’s sexual-harassment complaint and Dr. Foerster’s retaliation complaint fell outside the grant investigation. Hall Render nevertheless used statements and findings from the Office for Institutional Equity/Title IX proceedings to assess Dr. Foerster’s credibility and motivation. (NIH Grant Report, PDF pp. 29–30.)
Hall Render specifically repeated a statement attributed to Ms. Altaee in the separate OIE report: that Dr. Foerster had “created the worry in her mind that Dr. Welsh was sabotaging her.” (NIH Grant Report, PDF p. 30.)
Ms. Altaee never received a copy of her own OIE report. Dr. Foerster also did not possess the report when French testified on November 12, 2018. Tukel did not give the OIE report to Dr. Foerster until November 14—two days after French’s testimony.
Dr. Foerster therefore could not compare Hall Render’s characterization with the underlying OIE report while cross-examining French.
Second, Hall Render used conclusions from the separate EPIC investigation to undermine Dr. Foerster’s credibility regarding the NIH grant. Hall Render called statements by Drs. Foerster, Petrou, Cronin, and Kelly “flat misrepresentations” and relied on that characterization while assessing Dr. Foerster’s grant-related statements. (NIH Grant Report, PDF p. 30.)
Hall Render had converted separate OIE/Title IX, retaliation, medical-billing, and NIH-grant proceedings into a cumulative credibility case against the reporting faculty members.
Hall Render wrote that the University continued to collect time-and-effort information because of an NIH audit. Hall Render reserved the right to revisit and update the analysis and conclusions and described the report’s conclusions as “initial findings.” (NIH Grant Report, PDF p. 31.)
The report then introduced a section titled “Considerations for Next Steps.” The released copy redacts that section across the remaining pages. The final two pages of the six-page NIH executive summary are also almost entirely redacted.
The visible portion states that terminating the study and returning the grant to NIH could result in a repayment demand. The redactions prevent the public from seeing what Hall Render recommended that the University do next. (NIH Grant Executive Summary, PDF p. 4.)
The EPIC report likewise contains extensive redactions in its legal-analysis section. The visible text reveals that Hall Render separately analyzed possible defamation claims and employment action, but the University has not released that memorandum.
During the November 12, 2018 hearing, French called the NIH-grant report final despite its “DRAFT” designation and stated that Hall Render stood “100 percent” behind it.
The hearing record also shows that French had not reviewed Dr. Foerster’s OIE/Title IX retaliation report. When Dr. Foerster attempted to establish that the retaliation report omitted 14 of the 17 evidentiary submissions Dr. Foerster had provided, Tukel objected and hearing chair Dr. Carol Bradford ended the inquiry.
More than a year after Hall Render prepared the unsigned draft reports, the University used both reports in dismissal proceedings against Dr. Foerster for concerns Dr. Foerster had reported in good faith. The proceedings ultimately forced Dr. Foerster’s resignation from a tenured faculty appointment.
Read David French’s complete cross-examination and the page-referenced analysis.
The complete two-page EPIC executive summary appears below.
The complete six-page NIH-grant executive summary appears below.
The complete exchange documents Dr. Foerster’s repeated requests for the Hall Render reports and Tukel’s confirmation that the documents labeled “draft” were “the only reports.”
The complete unsigned report labeled “DRAFT” appears below. Open the report in a separate window.
The complete unsigned report labeled “DRAFT” appears below. Open the report in a separate window.
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.