Are complainants to the Minnesota Board of Dentistry entitled to statutory due-process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner, Eman Hegazy, suffered from fatal complications because of her treatment by urldergraduate students under the supervision of their professors, during an educational session at the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry (the School). She was admitted to the Emergency Room twice within eight days. The questions presented are: 1) Are complainants to the Minnesota Board of Dentistry (the Board) entitled to the statutory due ptocess as plainly stated in 45 CFR § 164.508, and MN Statutes: 214.001, 214.10, 214.108, 150A.081, 13.04, 18.05, 13.055, 3251.08, 325L.09, 144.292 and 144.293? Can this Court affirm due process to the complainant as acorollary of Withrow v. Larkin, 421 Us. 35 (1975), since fairness to the complainant is reciprocally fairness to the licensees, and retributive justice is the complainant's right against licensees? 2) The School is a public institution and a participant in the Medicare/Medicaid Program. Thus, thle School is theoretically bound to uphold Patients’ Rights under 42 CFR § 482.13. Does the School have a Guty to resolve Hegazy's grievances as mandated in the statute? Notably, Hegazy's treatment was covered by Medicaid. Did Dean Mays and his colleagues have a | fiduciary duty to answer Hegazy's medical questions on the causes of her complications? Should their silence give rise to an adverse inference, especially one of her complications was expressly excluded from the surgery's informed consent?