In Wexler v. Hecht, 593 Pa. 118, 928 A.2d 973 (2007), the court adopted the analysis set forth by Judge Beck in Warren v. Folk, 2005 PA Super 367, 886 A.2d 305 (Pa. Super. 2005), describing it as "an apt clarification of the governing principles." Wexler, 593 Pa. at 127, 928 A.2d at 978. Judge Beck reasoned that a rule or statute does not operate retrospectively merely because it is applied in a case that arises from conduct that preceded its promulgation or alters expectations deriving from prior laws. Rather, she indicated, "the court must ask whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment." Judge Beck observed that this Court has expressly considered the issue of retroactivity in terms of whether or not the rule or statute in question affects vested rights, or rights that "so completely and definitely belong to a person that they cannot be impaired or taken away without the person's consent." She reasoned that Rule 1042.3 merely added a procedural requirement for going forward with a suit, designed to provide some assurance that the claims are based on arguably meritorious assertions, and did not infringe on any vested right. ("To be a retroactive application to appellant's suit, Rule 1042.3 would have to give the alleged incidents of malpractice a new legal effect -- i.e., one that is different from their legal effect under the rules existing at the time the incidents occurred. This is not the case.") Wexler, 593 Pa. at 128, 928 A.2d at 979.