Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel reversing the decision of the trial judge dismissing the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  Defendant argued that the officer violated his rights under R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-3 by not providing him a “reasonable opportunity” to obtain an independent medical examination and that a violation of § 31-27-3 should result in the dismissal of the charge of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1.  Section 31-27-2.1(c)(3) requires that “the [defendant] had been informed of his or her rights in accordance with § 31-27-3.” (emphasis added).  The District Court held that a refusal conviction only requires that the defendant be put on notice of the right to an independent medical examination and that the plain language of the statute does not require that the defendant actually be provided with a “reasonable opportunity” to obtain such an examination.  The Court went on to note that even if § 31-27-2.1(c)(3) requires that the defendant be given a “reasonable opportunity” to obtain an independent medical examination for a refusal charge the defendant was afforded such an opportunity in this case because he was allowed to make a telephone call for thirty minutes to contact his physician, he was transported to the hospital for tests, and the tests conducted at the hospital were not performed at the direction of the officer.  Further, even if § 31-27-3 did apply to a refusal charge and the officer’s conduct constituted a breach of that right, the defendant was not prejudiced and, therefore, the proper remedy would not be dismissal.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.