
    Argued and submitted March 12,
    affirmed September 15, 1982
    JOPLIN, Appellant, v. A. H. ROBINS CO., INC., Respondent.
    
    (No. [ AXXXX-XXXXX ], CA A21612)
    650 P2d 192
    Frank J. Susak, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    Steven K. Blackhurst, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Rick T. Haselton, Steven K. Blackhurst and Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler, Portland.
    Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Dortch v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 59 Or App 310, 650 P2d 1046 (1982).

Rossman, J., dissenting.

ROSSMAN, J.,

dissenting.

I dissent from the majority opinion for the same reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Dortch v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 59 Or App 310, 650 P2d 1046 (1982). 
      
       As in Dortch v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 59 Or App 310, 650 P2d 1046 (1982), plaintiff has alleged that she did not “learn” of the relationship between the defective nature of the Daikon Shield and her intrauterine infections until a date more than eight years from the date the device was inserted. The relevant chronology in this case is illustrated by the diagram below.
      
        
      
      