Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply because the defendant impliedly waived her right to argue the issue of whether or not she was the operator of the vehicle by taking the stand and testifying that she was, in fact, the operator. Despite the defendant’s contention that the state failed to establish that she was the operator of the vehicle in prior proceedings, the defendant’s testimony serve as an implied waiver of her right to argue that issue. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.