[the litigants] actually relied on [an] old rule [or] how they would suffer from retroactive application of a new one,’ ” Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 95 n. 9, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (quoting James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 543, 111 S.Ct. 2439, 115 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991)). Third, even assuming that the risk contribution doctrine imposed retroactive liability and that judicial decisions in the civil law area were subject to constitutional challenge on retroactivity grounds, the doctrine does not violate either the Due Process or Takings Clause. As to the former, a civil statute that imposes retroactive liability -will be found to violate due process only if it is “arbitrary and irrational.” Usery, 428 U.S. at 15, 96 S.Ct. 2882 (<HOLDING>); see also Central States, SE & SW v. Midwest
holding that the right to recover a particular measure of damages in a workers compensation case is fixed as of the date of injury holding that a transfer of work was a mandatory subject of bargaining because the motivation for the shift was to cut labor costs holding that the facts did not measure up to the standard expressed for determining procedural due process holding that black lung compensation scheme satisfied due process because it was a rational measure to spread the costs of the employees disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure