The Exit Was Shut: 84 Minutes After Dr. Bradley Foerster Accepted a Maryland Job Offer, It Was Rescinded—and “Not Credible” Became His University Record

Three days before his May 1, 2019 SACUA appeal hearing, Dr. Bradley Foerster accepted a written offer for a neuroradiology position in Maryland.

Eighty-four minutes later, the offer was rescinded because of unspecified “recently discovered information.”

At the hearing, Dr. Foerster said the rescission supported his concern that the proceedings were being used as a personal attack on his credibility. He told the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs that otherwise he would have resigned from UM that week, withdrawn his litigation, and moved forward.

The Maryland Position

On April 15, 2019, CompHealth recruiter Danielle Balagula sent Dr. Foerster a detailed description of an opening with Diagnostic Imaging in Lanham, Maryland.

The position involved approximately 60 to 70 percent neuroradiology and offered a $300,000 annual salary, partnership track, benefits, and relocation assistance. The work would be performed at Doctors Community Hospital—now Luminis Health Doctors Community Medical Center—and an affiliated outpatient facility in Prince George’s County.

Dr. Foerster expressed interest on April 16. On April 22, Ms. Balagula informed him that Dr. Benjamin Stallings, the hospital’s imaging medical director, wanted to speak with him.

According to Dr. Foerster’s recollection, Dr. Stallings and several of his partners subsequently interviewed him at Doctors Community Hospital. Dr. Stallings appeared highly impressed and asked what else Dr. Foerster did “other than walk on water.”

After the interview, Dr. Stallings drove Dr. Foerster—with the top down in his white BMW 6 Series convertible—to a local crab shack, where they continued their conversation over an early dinner. Dr. Foerster recalled the interaction as exceptionally positive.

The Written Employment Offer

At 4:58 p.m. on Saturday, April 27, Dr. Stallings wrote:

“I am pleased to offer you the position for a NeuroRadiologist at DIA.”

The offer was contingent on the absence of contractual restrictions and contemplated a separate formal employment agreement. Dr. Stallings concluded:

“We are very excited about welcoming you to DIA and look forward to having you join our team.”

At 10:07 p.m. the following evening, Dr. Foerster formally accepted:

“I formally accept your offer for a neuroradiologist/radiologist position at DIA. I am very excited to join your group and look forward to receiving a formal contract.”

<

Offer Rescinded 84 Minutes Later

At 11:31 p.m., Dr. Stallings rescinded the offer:

“Although we looked forward to having you join our group, due to recently discovered information, I have been informed by the entire group to rescind this offer immediately.”

Dr. Stallings referred Dr. Foerster to Ms. Balagula for additional information and stated that Dr. Stallings would no longer communicate with Dr. Foerster. The message did not identify the “recently discovered information.”

After the late-night rescission, Dr. Foerster subsequently called Ms. Balagula. Dr. Foerster recalls that Ms. Balagula said the University of Michigan had contacted Dr. Stallings and raised concerns about Dr. Foerster.

The Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs Appeal Hearing

On May 1—three days after the rescission—Dr. Foerster appeared before the SACUA Review Committee as part of the Bylaw 5.09 appeal.

Dr. Foerster stated the premise at the center of this record:

“The concept that these proceedings are being used as a personal attack on my credibility is also backed by the fact that I understand the University interfered with a formal job offer I received in the past week which resulted in the offer being rescinded.”

Dr. Foerster repeated the statement for emphasis and explained what the accepted position would have meant:

“If the University had not taken such action, I would have resigned this week, withdrew my litigation, gone on with my life and we could have all taken the morning off.”

UM Called the Offer “Purported” and Alternative Employment “Wholly Irrelevant”

On the evening of May 1, following the hearing, Dr. Foerster submitted the documents requested by the SACUA committee chair. Dr. Foerster also stated that a documented telephone call with Dr. Stallings confirmed the salary and benefits for the position.

At 9:15 a.m. the following morning, Mr. Daniel Tukel formally objected:

“On behalf of the Dean, I want to formally object to the use of the email chain regarding the purported job offer. As a preliminary matter Dr. Foerster had the document since April 28, but did not provide it until May 1 (after the hearing), so the University had no opportunity to review or respond (and the University certainly disputes that it would take any action to interfere with Dr. Foerster finding alternate employment). But more importantly, whether or not Dr. Foerster found an alternate position recently is wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether there was and is a basis for him to be recommended for dismissal from the University.”

Twelve minutes later, Dr. Foerster answered the premise of the objection directly:

“The emails regarding the job offer were requested by the SACUA committee chair and that is why I provided them.

The issue with the university interfering with new employment was introduced to show that the 5.09 proceedings are being used to destroy me for life and not just terminate me from the University of Michigan, for unclear reasons. The argument is that if the University of Michigan believes I am not a good fit for them, but as Mr. Tukel replied to Dr. Staller, there were never any complaints about me with respect to my clinical work or research fraud etc, there is no reason to block me from seeking rightful alternative employment under the provisions of the US constitution and Michigan State Law. As such, doing so denotes an alternative, sinister and inexplicable agenda and it is important for the SACUA to understand and investigate this matter.”

The Exit Was Shut

By April 28, 2019, there was no longer any question about whether Dr. Foerster was willing to leave UM. He had accepted another position and was prepared to resign that week.

His resignation would have ended his UM employment and the related litigation. Instead, the accepted position was rescinded, and the Bylaw 5.09 proceedings continued.

Dr. Foerster’s concrete path out had disappeared.

The Maryland offer and its almost immediate rescission did not arise in isolation. As the earlier institutional-exit chronology documents, Dr. Eva Feldman stated in 2015 that someone was providing “misinformation” about Dr. Foerster and Dr. Myria Petrou. Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou recall that Dr. Feldman later identified Dr. Reed Dunnick and other Radiology faculty as the sources.

“Not Credible” Became Dr. Foerster’s Record

Dr. Foerster pointed to Mr. Daniel Tukel’s prehearing memorandum as further evidence of the focus on credibility. Mr. Tukel used nine of the twenty pages available for his memorandum to attack Dr. Foerster’s credibility instead of addressing the five issues SACUA had directed the parties to address.

In the weeks that followed, the credibility attack hardened into an official finding. Dean Marschall Runge described Dr. Foerster as “untruthful and not credible in sworn testimony.” President Mark Schlissel made the adverse credibility finding central to his recommendation for dismissal, emphasizing that both faculty committees had found Dr. Foerster “not credible in a number of ways.”

Resignation would have ended Dr. Foerster’s employment. Continuing the proceedings allowed Dean Runge and President Schlissel to re-echo and ratify the adverse credibility findings of the Medical School Ad Hoc Committee and Senate Faculty Review Committee, carrying that determination into the University’s formal decision record.

Maryland, Years Later

Years later, while representing the Montgomery County Medical Society at a MedChi House of Delegates meeting, Dr. Foerster encountered Dr. Stallings again.

Dr. Stallings appeared pleased to see him and said that he was glad Dr. Foerster had made it to Maryland.

Current UM Leadership and SACUA Asked to Review the Record

On November 11, 2026, Dr. Foerster sent the complete Maryland record to UM President Domenico Grasso, Vice President and General Counsel Patricia Petrowski, current SACUA Chair Kentaro Toyama, and Professor Karen Staller, who chaired the 2019 Senate Faculty Review Committee.

Dr. Foerster expressly acknowledged that President Grasso, Vice President Petrowski, and Professor Toyama did not hold their current positions in 2019. Dr. Foerster did not attribute the 2019 decisions to those current officials. Dr. Foerster instead asked them to determine UM’s and SACUA’s present positions on the documented record and whether further review is warranted.

The request asked whether current UM leadership and SACUA endorse Mr. Tukel’s characterization of the written offer as “purported” and alternative employment as “wholly irrelevant.” It also asked whether the Senate Faculty Review Committee contacted Dr. Benjamin Stallings, why the readily verifiable allegation was treated as a credibility dispute if no inquiry occurred, and how UM reconciles Mr. Tukel’s position with Dean Runge’s later statement that Dr. Foerster had the right to resign but “chose not to do so.”

Dr. Foerster also asked whether the University’s formal decision record should be corrected or supplemented. Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit, and Dr. Myria Petrou were copied on the request.

Documentary Record

Document 1 — Maryland Recruitment Correspondence and Position Description (April 15–22, 2019)

Document 2 — Written Offer, Acceptance, and Rescission (April 26–28, 2019)

Document 3 — Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs Appeal Hearing Transcript: Maryland Offer and Credibility Statement (May 1, 2019)

Document 4 — Submission of the Requested Maryland Offer Documents, UM’s Objection, and Dr. Foerster’s Response (May 1–2, 2019)

Part A — May 1, 2019 Submission and Attachment List

Note: The attachment was named “4-27-19 Foerster job offer.pdf,” but the filename was off by one day. The correspondence concerns April 28, 2019. Mr. Tukel’s May 2 response likewise stated that Dr. Foerster had possessed the document “since April 28.”

Part B — May 2, 2019 Complete Email Chain

Document 5 — Request for Current UM and SACUA Review of the Maryland Offer Record (November 11, 2026)

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.