Anyone who watched the sentencing of disgraced doctor, Larry Nassar, had to be impacted by the enormity of his wrongdoing and how it remained hidden for so long. But recent facts that have come to light reveal that Michigan State University had an opportunity to get ahead of the abuse when the allegations surfaced, but it did not.

According to the Lansing State Journal, MSU failed to conduct a full-blown independent investigation at the onset, when according to news reports it instead relied on internal personnel to head the probe. Later, according to the Detroit News, when the school finally secured outside counsel for assistance, it mislead the public to believe it was done as part of an independent investigation. Now MSU will have to face the consequences of its apparent inaction. In addition to an increasingly tarnished reputation in the court of public opinion, it faces a full investigation by Michigan's Attorney General Bill Schuette, who has indicated that he'll spare no expense to find out who knew what and when. Consequences may be enormous for the school.

During the sentencing hearing on seven counts of first degree sexual assault, dozens of survivors gave deeply personal testimony about their abuse and its impact on their lives. By the time of his 40- to 175-year prison sentence, more than 250 women who had been under his care over a 20-year period came forward to publicly confront him.

While the MSU Board of Trustees has voiced support for Schuette's investigation, many of the victims are now asking why the institution, which they say enabled Nassar, should not also be held accountable. Why did MSU refuse to act after many of them came forward with details of abuse?

Details of Abuse

Specifically, two important details were made public that complicate the situation. In a 2014 Title IX complaint filed against MSU, former student Amanda Thomashow described Nassar massaging her breasts and genitals under the guise of treatment. The investigation was handled internally at the school by its Title IX Coordinator and concluded that Nassar's behavior was “not of a sexual nature,” a determination based on interviews with three medical specialists and an athletic trainer. All four had personal ties to Nassar, and all four were employed by Michigan State, according to the Lansing State Journal.

It now turns out that the report given to Thomashow was different than the internal report given to, and only recently made public by, MSU. That report also cleared Nassar of harassment but included the assessment that his methods were inflicting “unnecessary trauma” on his patients and were putting the university at risk. Thomashow never saw it.

Attorneys representing Nassar's victims were shocked to hear of two reports, noting that if the internal MSU Report was made public in 2014, MSU could have prevented further abuse. “They deprived Amanda and all of the survivors from that knowledge they held at the time. Had they disclosed that information, it would have been disseminated so people would know that Nassar was preying on girls,” explained one of the lawyers.

In 2017, as complaints of abuse were mounting, MSU hired Patrick Fitzgerald, a highly respected former federal prosecutor, to investigate. Fitzgerald was transparent in describing what he and his law firm were engaged to do.

“We were engaged to provide counsel regarding anticipated litigation and to make sure that any internal reviews did not interfere with the two law enforcement inquiries underway,” Fitzgerald wrote, referring to criminal investigations that led to Nassar's prosecution. However, at least one Michigan lawmaker, as well as The Detroit News, have been openly critical of what they view as less than candid conduct on the part of MSU.

“Michigan State led the public to believe that there had been an independent investigation,” said Tom Leonard, the Republican speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives in a recent interview to the New York Times. “And then as we continued to dig into this, we found out it was not an independent investigation. It was an internal investigation to shield them from liability.”

Against this back-drop, is there any doubt why Michigan AG Schuette is so interested in a full- fledged investigation into the conduct of MSU? A letter demanding texts, emails and other records of those who worked closely with Nassar was presented to the MSU Board. It sought immediate production of certain information, with the remainder to be produced by a February 9 deadline. As of this writing, 45,000 documents were timely produced, according to MSU's interim president John Engler who was proud of the board's “prompt compliance” with the request .

For the 150 or so plaintiffs who have already filed lawsuits against the university, release of that information cannot come soon enough. But for MSU, which appears to have compounded its woes with a lack of transparency, the full extent of its troubles may have only begun.

Whatever the results of that investigation may yield, the information will assuredly be used to develop and determine MSU's liability, should its contents support such a finding. Unfortunately for MSU, this is information it had the opportunity to learn about, and learn from, long ago.

Karen Y. Bitar is a partner in the Litigation Department of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and is national co-chair of the firm's white collar, internal investigations and false claims team. She is based in New York.