it hotly contests) does not automatically equate to a violation of due process. See Spielman v. Hildebrand, 873 F.2d 1377, 1385 (10th Cir.1989). Seay cites no authority for the proposition that due process required the Board to wait until it received a written and signed complaint about him before it could investigate whether he had violated the Dental Act. He analogizes the requirement of a complaint to a pre-termination hearing in the employment context. The Board’s issuance of a statement of complaint, however, notifying Seay of the charges against him, coupled with the right to a hearing provided before discipline was imposed, plainly served the purpose of notice and a predeprivation hearing. See Rules & Regs. § 195:3-l-4(b); cf. Keney v. Derby-shire, 718 F.2d 352 (10th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the alleged lack of a
holding physician not entitled to hearing prior to termination in a medicare program under eldridge recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician holding similar new mexico physician license revocation procedures satisfied due process notwithstanding absence of a probable cause hearing prior to institution of proceedings against physician holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance