Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that the defendant did not have the ability to “cure” a refusal to submit by subsequently submitting to a chemical test. The Court held that even though the defendant testified that he eventually agreed to submit to a chemical test, this did not cure his previous refusal to do so. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the violation against the defendant.