Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or irrelevant differences. Richardson, 107 N.M. at 694, 763 P.2d at 1159 (quoting Espanola Hous. Auth. v. Atencio, 90 N.M. 787, 789, 568 P.2d 1233, 1235 (1977)). As Amicus points out, “[ejpidemiologic studies of workers exposed to radiation, including [u]ranium miners, have established a [five to fifteen] year latency period for development of lung cancer from exposure to radiation.” As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court in a similar case, because available medical knowledge shows that workers exposed to radiation can develop lung cancer “beyond the magical [ten-year], post-exposure period,” the ten-year limitation for bringing such claims is arbitrary and not based on substantial or real distinctions. See Caruso v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 15 Ohio St.3d 306, 473 N.E.2d 818, 821 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Stevenson v. Industrial Comm’n, 190 Colo. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an eightyear limitation period applying to silicosisrelated deaths unconstitutional under a variation of the rational basis test (B) holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach (C) holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification (D) holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction (E) recognizing heightened rational basis scrutiny
Output (English): holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification