Hazem M. Hamdan, et al. v. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, et al.

Petitioner, Eman Hegazy, suffered from fatal complications because of her treatment by undergraduate 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 process as plainly stated in 45 CFR § 164.508, and MN Statutes: 214.001, 214.10, 214.103, 150A.081, 13.04, 13.05, 13.055, 325L.08, 325L.09, 144.292 and 144.293? Can this Court affirm due process to the ccjmplainant as a corollary of Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 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, the School is theoretically bound to uphold Patients’ Rights under 42 CFR § 482.13. Does the School have a duty 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?