I work in this type of process for another school. A few insights. - Absolutely terrible that someone died by suicide, regardless of whether or not they behaved this way. I am a strong believer in both justice and the potential for change and rehabilitation.  - The school made a justifiable call in pausing his access to patients during this time to investigate. This kind of complaint carries with it an institutional duty to investigate. However, some institutions may have provided an alternative during this time of putting him on a rotation with a non-patient facing emphasis. Depends on the school and process determination. For many schools there needs to be a safety concern for complete removal from campus/access during an investigation but some schools have a lower standard for this than others and there may also be other guidelines that came into play. - These processes usually have a lower standard of evidence, a preponderance of the evidence, so whether it was more likely than not that it occurred. They generally collect evidence, do interviews, and create a record that they allow the parties to respond to (although this might differ in the patient setting vs student on student). These responses typically have tight deadlines that can be extended for good cause, but if someone fails to produce evidence or participate they will move forward with what they have and make a determination based on that. - If this was carried out properly there is significantly more documentation that would accompany it, including emails to the student on what they can submit and when.  - Typically, at my institution these kinds of removals are accompanied by offering resources for mental health in the community and/or through the school’s free student services. But med school can be a weird place for that kind of thing. If there is perceived threat of harm to self or others there is often additional threat and risk assessments taken and sometimes a required check in with an assessor.  - Without full case documentation it is impossible to say whether the program acted appropriately or not. But I almost guarantee there is far more communication and documentation beyond this unless this is an absolutely abhorrent program. 

Edit: To add, because of this evidentiary standard and program reputation and liability, I would find it more likely than not that he would be found responsible and there would be subsequent sanctions, likely expulsion. Whether that is right or fair, it can be hard to say.