the contrary. If the latter is the case, the inverse presumption is applied and the statutory amendment has retrospective effect. A statute that is purely procedural is one that has to do with the steps that must be taken to enforce a right. Such a statute will be “construed as operating on all proceedings instituted after its passage whether the right accrued before of after that event.” Kelch v. Keehn, 183 Md. 140, 145, 36 A.2d 544 (1944). Because procedural enactments will not be applied so as to undo already concluded proceedings, see Holland v. Woodhaven Bldg. & Dev., Inc., 113 Md.App. 274, 287, 687 A.2d 699 (1996), they are retroactive in effect in the sense that they apply immediately to actions that already have accrued. See Roth v. Dimensions, 332 Md. 627, 632 A.2d 1170 (1993)(<HOLDING>); see also The Wharf At Handy’s Point, Inc. v.
holding that a north carolina rule requiring an expert certification in a medical malpractice case applied in a federal tort claims act case sounding in medical malpractice brought in federal court holding that statute mandating an extension of time in which a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case may file a certificate of qualified expert circumstances was procedural and therefore applied retroactively to cases pending when the law was enacted holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases