[Posted June 17, 2008] The Court of Appeals hands down one published opinion today, an en banc rehearing of Doe v. Board of Dentistry. It’s an administrative law ruling in a disciplinary proceeding against a dentist whose name was sanitized by the trial court (the appellant is listed as “John Doe, DDS”) pursuant to statute. Today’s opinion, like the panel’s ruling, is unanimous (making me wonder slightly who voted to grant rehearing, and why), and follows the reasoning of the panel’s decision in November. My analysis of that ruling is here.

In case you’re wondering why the court chose to publish this opinion, that’s an easy one – because it’s en banc. The court decides on a case-by-case basis whether the decision offers sufficient precedential value to warrants its being published, but it publishes all en banc rulings; no polling of judges required.