How does the court distinguish between the Noor case & the Mezrah v. Bevis
case?

The court distinguished the Noor case from Mezra v. Bevis in the following ways: the court upheld a defendants’ judgment in a medical negligence case based on the alleged breach to timeously make a diagnosis of breast cancer as distinguished because damages were sought within this case on the alleged grounds that Mrs. Noor’s life span had indeed been reduced   due to a delay from several months in neglecting to make a diagnosis on her breast cancer. Even if the condition had been accurately recognized by defendant physician at the very first chance, her life span had already been lowered as a result of illness, according to the judge the plaintiff in that instance were unable to establish causation as they provided “no subjective information about what degree, if there were any, [the defendant physician’s] inability to diagnosis her cancer increased to Mrs. Noor’s diminished life span.”   Plaintiff in this instance, on the other hand, appears to have asserted damages on a separate basis, namely, that if she’d been identified with breast cancer sooner, she would have been much more probably than not cured. She provided sufficient proof in this regard, as previously stated. (Buchanan, 2017)

How are the cases the same and how are they different?

The cases are similar in that they both rely on verdicts based on medical actions that fall below the standard of care. On the other hand, the cases appear to be distinct. The Noor case and the Mezrah case are about the defendant’s physician’s failure to recognize Noor’s breast cancer in time, which resulted in her life expectancy being reduced, whereas the Bevis case (appellee) is about the appeal a final judgment entering on a jury verdict finding them liable to plaintiff for failing to diagnose breast cancer.