What is the effect of a medical licensee's award of attorney's fees in an administrative mandamus proceeding?

I support the proposition that review and disciplinary proceedings involving medical licensees "are not for the purpose of punishment but primarily to protect the public served by the licensee." (Cipriotti v. Board of Directors (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 144, 157, 196 Cal.Rptr. 367.) However, I disagree with the majority's position that affirming Mir's award of attorney's fees conflicts with such purpose. Awarding fees to physicians who prevail in a mandamus proceeding under a substantial evidence test does not put the public at risk. Such a result should in no way restrict the vigorous investigation and presentation of evidence which should accompany a peer review committee hearing. Nor does it impede the subsequent review of the evidence presented at the committee hearing, review by both the judicial review committee and by a hospital's board of directors, or similar body, if the [27 Cal.App.4th 1497] health care provider seeks the latter review. Hospitals are always free to consult with their own legal counsel when deciding whether to discipline staff members and whether to defend an administrative mandamus suit or other court action.