In DiCola v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 694 A.2d 398 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), the trial court sustained a licensee's appeal of a one-year suspension of his operating privilege based on the licensee's reported refusal to submit to chemical testing. In so doing, the trial court rejected the arresting officer's testimony that he had reasonable grounds to believe the licensee operated his vehicle under the influence. PennDOT appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the arresting officer's testimony about those things which gave him reasonable grounds to believe the licensee was driving under the influence of alcohol. The Court rejected this argument, and awarded the licensee attorney's fees on the ground PennDOT's appeal was frivolous. Speaking through Judge Friedman, this Court explained: Under Pa. R.A.P. 2744, an appellate court may award reasonable counsel fees if it determines that an appeal is frivolous. Basing an appeal solely upon facts which are contrary to the factual findings of the trial court, the sole arbiter of credibility, has been held to be frivolous. Morrell v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety, 133 Pa. Commw. 338, 575 A.2d 171 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). Here, PennDOT's appeal is based solely on the testimony of the arresting officer, which the trial court rejected in its entirety. Although PennDOT claims that the trial court abused its discretion in making this credibility determination, PennDOT presents no legitimate reasoning to support this claim. Therefore, we grant the licensee's request for counsel fees. DiCola, 694 A.2d at 400-401.