at the same time maintaining “reasonable cost[s] to the employers.” NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-1 (Repl.Pamp.1991). We hold that the legislative goal of maintaining reasonable costs to employers is a legitimate legislative goal and that the time limit prescribed by Section 52-3-10(C) is rationally related to this legislative goal because it lowers employer costs by eliminating all claims arising more than ten years after the last day of employment. We conclude, however, that Section 52-3-10(C) is unconstitutional notwithstanding its rational relationship to the valid legislative goal of lowering employer costs. Rational basis review requires that the challenged legislative classification be based upon some substantial or real distinction, and not ar 545 P.2d 712, 715-16 (1976) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). While, Section 52-3-10(0 probably reduces
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 recognizing heightened rational basis scrutiny holding a fiveyear silicon dioxide exposure requirement uncon stitutional under the rational basis test holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction holding rational basis as standard for commerce clause inquiries