The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT), appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) which sustained the appeal of James V. Burke (Licensee) from a one-year suspension of his operating privileges for refusing to submit to chemical testing pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code (Code).1 We affirm.

On August 3, 1997, the pick-up truck Licensee was driving nearly collided with a stopped police car. (R.R. at 16a.) After Licensee’s truck came to a stop, Officer Gary Krek of the Brentwood Borough Police Department approached Licensee and observed signs of intoxication. (R.R. at 16a-17a.) Officer Krek administered six field sobriety tests, five of which Licensee failed. (R.R. at 18a.) Licensee was arrested and transported to the police station.

At the police station, Police Officer Scott Harding, a certified intoxilyzer operator, read Licensee verbatim the chemical test warnings on DOT Form DL-26,2 (R.R. at 35a-86a), which warnings Licensee understood. (R.R. at 52a-53a.) Officer Harding administered a breathalyzer test to Licensee, using the Intoxilyzer 5000. (R.R. at 34a-35a.)

Officer Harding conducted three separate breathalyzer tests on Licensee, for a total of six breath samples. (R.R. at 38a.) Officer Harding testified that the test requires two breath samples, with a maximum permissible deviation between the breath samples of .02. (R.R. at 37a-38a.) Because the deviation between Licensee’s breath samples for each test was greater than .02, the intoxilyzer indicated “a reading of invalid sample.” Officer Harding attributed the invalid samples to Licensee’s failure to provide a steady stream of air into the intoxilyzer’s mouthpiece.3 (R.R. at 40a.)

After Licensee failed to give sufficient breath samples for the three breathalyzer tests, Officer Harding instructed Officer Krek to take Licensee to the hospital for a blood test. Officer Krek transported Licensee to the hospital and read Licensee *16his warnings; Licensee willingly signed the DOT form indicating that he understood those warnings. (R.R. at 25a-26a.) Thereafter, a member of the hospital staff informed Licensee that he would have to sign a hospital consent form before his blood could be withdrawn. When Licensee refused either to read or to sign that form, his conduct was deemed a refusal of the blood test. (R.R. at 29a.) By letter of August 20, 1997, DOT notified Licensee that it was suspending his driving privilege due to his “CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL on 8/03/97.” (R.R. at 6a.) Licensee filed a timely appeal.

The trial court found that Licensee’s failure to supply sufficient breath samples at the police station was vitiated for purposes of the determination of a refusal when the officers transported Licensee to the hospital for a blood test. (R.R. at 68a-69a.) With respect to the blood test, the trial court ruled that Licensee’s refusal to sign the hospital form did not amount to a refusal to submit to the blood test.4 (R.R. at 69a.) Consequently, the trial court sustained Licensee’s appeal. DOT’s appeal followed.5

To sustain a license suspension under section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, DOT must prove that the licensee (1) was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol; (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was specifically warned that refusal would result in the revocation of his driver’s license. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Ingram, 538 Pa. 236, 648 A.2d 285 (1994). Because here DOT undisputedly satisfied the first, second and fourth elements, the only question with regard to DOT’s burden of proof is whether Licensee refused to take a chemical test. DOT argues that Licensee refused to submit to both the breath and blood tests; however, we conclude that, under the unique circumstances presented, DOT cannot establish that Licensee refused to take either of the tests.6

With respect to the blood test, the trial court ruled that Licensee’s refusal’to sign the hospital form did not amount to a refusal to submit to the blood test. (R.R. at 68a-69a.) We agree with the trial court.

Here, there is no question that Licensee initially consented to take a subsequent blood test. He willingly went to the hospital and signed DOT’s form consenting to the test and indicating that he understood the warnings the officers had given him. (R.R. at 25a-26a.) However, the hospital did not conduct the blood test because Licensee refused to sign a hospital form. We agree with the trial court that Licensee’s refusal to sign the hospital form did not constitute a refusal of the test, i.e., a revocation of his consent to take that test.

“Requiring a licensee to sign a form, of whatever nature, in order tó consent to chemical testing, is beyond the parameters of § 1547 [of the Vehicle Code] which does not require a licensee to complete any pre-test procedure.” Depart-*17merit of Transportation v. Renwick, 543 Pa. 122, 130-31, 669 A.2d 934, 939 (1996). Thus, a licensee’s failure to sign a hospital form is not a per se refusal to chemical testing. Id. On the other hand, failure to sign a hospital form will constitute a refusal where the licensee has not given an unqualified, unequivocal assent to the test itself. Id.

Relying on Renwick, DOT argues that Licensee’s overall conduct demonstrates his refusal of the blood test. We disagree. Although Licensee refused to sign, or even look at, the hospital form, his refusal related solely to the form; he gave an unqualified, unequivocal assent to the test itself.7 Indeed, prior to the time the hospital staff told Licensee that he had to sign the form, Licensee had unqualifiedly and unequivocally agreed to submit to the blood test. Even after he refused to sign the form, Licensee restated his agreement to submit to the test. Licensee testified that, after he refused to sign the hospital form, he told the officers, “Take the blood; take the blood. I told the officer to take the blood.” (R.R. at 54a.) This testimony was unrefuted. We therefore conclude that Licensee did not refuse the blood test when he refused to sign the hospital form.

With respect to the breath test, the trial court found that Licensee failed to supply sufficient breath samples during the test; nevertheless, the trial court concluded that Licensee’s failure to supply sufficient breath samples was vitiated for purposes of the determination of a refusal when the officers’ transported Licensee to the hospital for a blood test. We agree that Licensee’s conduct with respect to the breath test was vitiated for purposes of a determination of a refusal but for reasons different from the trial court’s.8

DOT argues that, because Licensee never actually completed the blood test, Licensee’s refusal of the breath test is not waived. In making this argument, DOT relies on Olbrish v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 423, 619 A.2d 397 (1992) and Geonnotti v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 138 Pa.Cmwlth. 652, 588 A.2d 1343 (1991). According to DOT, those cases stand for the proposition that the prior refusal may not be waived unless the licensee successfully completes the subsequent test. Those cases, however, are distinguishable and, thus, do not control here.

The facts of Olbrish are similar to, but significantly different from, those of the instant case. In Olbrish, the licensee failed to supply sufficient breath samples during a breathalyzer test. The police officer told the licensee that his actions *18constituted a refusal and in fact, at that time, deemed the licensee’s inability to supply sufficient breath samples a refusal. Nevertheless, the police officer, explaining that he was “trying to be fair,” asked the licensee to take a blood test. The licensee agreed, but refused to sign a hospital consent form. The trial court concluded that the licensee’s failure to supply sufficient breath in the first test constituted a refusal. We agreed, after first determining that the police officers had in fact “promptly informed” the licensee that his actions constituted a refusal of the first test. Id. at 399.

Similarly, in Geonnotti, the licensee failed to provide sufficient breath samples on two breathalyzer tests and the officers treated his conduct as refusals. In fact, the officers not only told the licensee the consequences of those refusals, they also completed forms indicating that the licensee had refused the tests.

Olbrish and Geonnotti are distinguishable from the instant case because in those cases the police officers promptly treated as a refusal the licensee’s conduct with respect to the initial tests. Here, in sharp contrast, Officer Harding did not treat or deem Licensee’s failure to supply sufficient breath samples as a refusal. Following Licensee’s failed breathalyzer tests, Officer Harding did not complete any forms reflecting Licensee’s refusal and did not inform Licensee that his conduct constituted a refusal.

Officer Harding testified that, as a certified intoxilyzer operator, his duties include determining whether a person has refused the test for failure to provide a sufficient breath sample. (R.R. at 43a.) Although Officer Harding acknowledged that he had authority to deem Licensee’s failure to provide sufficient breath samples a refusal, he stated that he chose not to do so in Licensee’s case. (R.R. at 38a.) In fact, he “deemed it not to be a refusal.” (R.R. at 44a) (emphasis added). Giving Licensee “the benefit of the doubt,”9 Officer Harding instructed Officer Krek to take Licensee to the hospital for a blood test. (R.R. at 38a, 44a.) We decline to do now what Officer Harding explicitly chose not to do at the time of the test.

We recognize that a police officer’s offer to administer a subsequent test “is a matter of grace and can be revoked at any time up until the test is administered.” Geonnotti 588 A.2d at 1346. Accord, Olbrish. However, here the police officers did not revoke the subsequent offer of a blood test. Rather, the record reflects that, although the hospital attached an impermissible precondition to the blood test by requiring Licensee to sign a form, the officers at no time revoked the subsequent offer of a blood test. Thus, that offer remained open.

Accordingly, because Officer Harding, at the time of the breath test, specifically deemed Licensee’s conduct not to be a refusal,10 because the trial court did *19not determine that Licensee’s insufficient breaths constituted a refusal and because the officers did not expressly revoke their offer of a subsequent blood test, we will not examiné Licensee’s conduct with respect to the breath test to determine whether it constitutes a refusal. For those reasons and because Licensee did not refuse the blood test, we affirm the trial court’s order.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 1999, we affirm the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated December 11,1997.

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. I believe that whether or not a licensee has refused a chemical test is a question of law for us to determine based upon the licensee’s conduct as found by the trial court. Whether the police “deem” that conduct to be a consent or refusal is irrelevant unless they communicate that view to the licensee and thereby in some manner alter his subsequent behavior, a situation not presented here. Accordingly, on the basis of Olbrish v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 423, 619 A.2d 397 (1992), I would reverse the order of the court of common pleas and reinstate the suspension.