ten to fifteen years after radiation exposure. See Stevenson, 545 P.2d at 716. In the absence of a constitutionally valid version of Section 52-3-10(0), Mrs. Schirmer may proceed with her claim for compensation under the Act. We vacate the Division’s order granting summary judgment for Homestake and remand this case to the Division for proceedings consistent with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. RANSOM and FROST, JJ., concur. 1 . For the purposes of this case, we consider the individual’s interest in full recovery of benefits under the Act to be equivalent to an individual's interest in full recovery of tort damages because Section 52-3-10(C) is the employee's exclusive remedy in cases such as the instant case. See Segura v. Molycorp, Inc., 97 N.M. 13, 16, 636 P.2d 284, 287 (1981)
holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy holding that if no notice was given prior to the institution of an action a condition precedent to the right to bring the action does not exist and the buyerplaintiff has lost the right of his remedy holding that once the workers compensation act provides a remedy it is exclusive and the employee has no right to bring an action in commonlaw negligence against his employer holding that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct the employee may pursue a civil action against his employer and also pursue benefits under the workers compensation act holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act