 The California legislature framed its statutes so as to allow "aggrieved physicians the opportunity to prove that the peer review to which they were subject was in fact carried out for improper purposes, i.e., for purposes unrelated to assuring quality care or patient safety".These statutes allow that a peer review can be found in court to have been improper due to bad faith or malice, in which case the peer reviewers' immunities from civil liability "fall by the wayside".Those who practice sham peer review could draw out the process by legal maneuvering, and the fairness of a peer review that has been unduly delayed has been called into question.