Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that it was improper to subject him to sanctions for refusal because he was unable to provide a sufficient sample due to injuries to his back and head. The Court outlined that due process prohibits penalizing a defendant for failing to perform an act that he or she does not have the physical ability to perform. In such a situation, however, it is the motorist who bears the burden of proving such a physical inability “except where such inability is obvious.” The Court agreed with the Appeals Panel and held that because there was no obvious inability and because the medical report the Defendant submitted did not link the Defendant’s injuries to an inability to perform the breath test, the Defendant did not meet his burden of proof. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision to sustain the violation.