日照幼儿羊羔疯哪里能治(泰安好的医院癫痫专病排名) (今日更新中)

A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed President Donald Trump illegally benefits from his Washington hotel and that same hotel hurts restaurants that are also near the White House.The lawsuit was brought forward in 2017 by Cork Wine Bar, a restaurant in Washington that said it suffered because lobbyists and other political-minded customers chose to host fundraisers, events and dinners at the Trump International Hotel rather than at its business.But Judge Richard Leon of the DC District Court wrote in his opinion Monday that Cork couldn't claim a competitive disadvantage simply because of a public figure's fame."Cork does not, for example, accuse (the hotel) or President Trump of acting to dissuade potential customers from patronizing Cork or somehow obstructing entry to Cork's location," Leon wrote.If he had ruled in the restaurant's favor, Leon wrote, "I would be foreclosing all manner of prominent people—from pop singers to celebrity chefs to professional athletes—from taking equity in the companies they promote. ... This I cannot do!"While the Trump International Hotel is currently run by a trust administered by the President's family members, it remains at the center of two other major lawsuits that allege Trump has accepted illegal payments through the business.Earlier this month, a federal judge denied Trump's appeal to pause discovery in a lawsuit brought by the governments of Washington, DC, and Maryland that alleges he violated the constitutional clause that prohibits gifts and advantages from foreign and domestic governments.The lawsuit raises the possibility that transactions between the Trump International Hotel and foreign dignitaries could be made public. 1755

A day after indicating a formal NFL request for information on an alleged physical assault involving star running back Kareem Hunt didn't occur until last week, Cleveland police said Wednesday the league was given a copy of the police report in February.The report did not go through the official public records request process, police said on their website. Instead, a member of the Cleveland Division of Police gave the report to an NFL representative.On Tuesday, police had said the league didn't make a formal request for records or body camera video until Friday.The NFL, which was harshly criticized for its handling and investigation of an assault in 2014 by former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, countered that it began looking into the February 10 incident involving Hunt days after it occurred.An NFL spokesman said Tuesday the league had requested information in February from the police and from the hotel where the event occurred.Hotel surveillance video posted Friday by TMZ shows the now-free agent kicking and shoving a woman in a late-night altercation outside a Cleveland hotel. The same day the video was posted, the Kansas City Chiefs waived Hunt, who led the NFL in rushing last season, and the league placed him on the commissioner's exempt list, meaning he cannot participate in any football activities until the NFL investigation is complete.Police didn't file charges in the case."In these instances, the victim is referred to the city prosecutor to file a misdemeanor charge," police said.Hunt admitted to ESPN in an interview aired Sunday that he acted inappropriately in February."Honestly, I never met the girl before besides that one time," he recalled. "It was just a disagreement, and I honestly wanted her just to leave. It's no excuse for me to act that way or to even put myself in that position."It was just a long night, and to be exact it don't really matter what happened," he said. "I was in the wrong, I could've ... (found) a way to de-escalate the whole situation."(There were) definitely some things that were said and did that I did not like, and that's not an excuse. ... That person in that video did not deserve that."Hunt's friend said the woman, who appears to be white, called both him and Hunt the N-word before the altercation, according to the police report.Despite being under investigation by the NFL, Hunt said he only realized the severity of what happened after seeing the surveillance footage.Hunt said he had lied to the Chiefs about the incident, but added he had not been questioned by the league. 2577

A California judge has ordered Stormy Daniels pay 3,052.33 in attorney's fees, costs and sanctions to the lawyers representing President Donald Trump in the defamation suit Daniels and her attorney Michael Avenatti brought against Trump earlier this year.Trump's attorney, Charles Harder, had asked for a total of nearly 0,000 from the adult films actress -- 9,000 in attorney fees and another 9,000 in sanctions in a hearing last week.In a statement, Harder called the ruling "a total victory for the President." 533

A Colorado family is reaching out to the public for help in treating their 15-year-old son’s rare and debilitating skin condition.For seven years, Jaiden Rogers has suffered from stiff skin syndrome, a disease that causes the skin to harden.“When they said it was stiff skin syndrome – I was like oh good it’s only that,” said Natalie, Jaiden’s mother. “But the doctor said, ‘oh no I don’t think you understand.’ They said his skin would turn to stone. Within a month, he was in a wheelchair. It spread so fast. Within just a few months, he was starting to get it everywhere.”The condition has caused his skin to gradually tighten and harden, spreading from his legs to his hips and then to his stomach and neck.It started as a growth behind his knee. Jaiden has since lost mobility. The syndrome is a painful one as the skin thickens, limiting joint mobility. The syndrome is sparked by a mutation change, and an exact treatment is unknown.With no cure for the disease, Rogers and his family are now banking on an experimental procedure to save his life.“Doctors in Ireland are working with doctors in London. This is very expensive,” Natalie said. “The whole treatment is .5 million, because they actually have to make something for him, because he is the only child. It’s our only hope, and we are running out of time.”Natalie says her son is “turning to stone,” leaving him unable to walk and sometimes giving him trouble breathing. He sees six doctors and takes chemotherapy drugs to slow the disease’s progression.Jaiden is being treated at Children's Hospital in Aurora, Colorado. He may be the only one in the world being treated for what has been tabbed stiff skin syndrome. Altogether, there have only been a few dozen documented cases of the disease.Today, Jaiden remains confined to a wheelchair and takes chemotherapy to slow the progression. However, the condition has since spread to his stomach, chest, and neck, making it difficult for him to breathe.The family has started a GoFundMe page to raise money for the experimental treatment. The fund’s .5 million goal includes 5,000 for a medical flight to Europe. 2142

A federal judge in Texas said on Friday that the Affordable Care Act's individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law must also fall."The Court ... declares the Individual Mandate ... unconstitutional," District Judge Reed O'Connor wrote in his decision. "Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA ... are inseverable and therefore invalid."The case against the ACA, also known as Obamacare, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors, as well as two individuals. It revolves around Congress effectively eliminating the individual mandate penalty by reducing it to <云转化_句子> as part of the 2017 tax cut bill.The Republican coalition is arguing that the change rendered the mandate itself unconstitutional. They say that the voiding of the penalty, which takes effect next year, removes the legal underpinning the Supreme Court relied upon when it upheld the law in 2012 under Congress' tax power. The mandate requires nearly all Americans to get health insurance or pay a penalty.The Trump administration said in June that it would not defend several important provisions of Obamacare in court. It agreed that the zeroing out the penalty renders the individual mandate unconstitutional but argued that that invalidates only the law's protections of those with pre-existing conditions. These include banning insurers from denying people policies or charging them more based on their medical histories, as well as limiting coverage of the treatment they need.But the administration maintained those parts of the law were severable and the rest of the Affordable Care Act could remain in place.Because the administration would not defend the law, California, joined by 16 other Democratic states, stepped in. They argued that the mandate remains constitutional and that the rest of the law, in any event, can stand without it. Also, they said that eliminating Obamacare or the protections for those with pre-existing conditions would harm millions of Americans.In oral arguments in September, a lawyer for California said that the harm from striking down the law would be "devastating" and that more than 20 million Americans were able to gain health insurance under it.The lawsuit entered the spotlight during the midterm elections, helping propel many Democratic candidates to victory. Protecting those with pre-existing conditions became a central focus of the races. Some 58% of Americans said they trust Democrats more to continue the law's provisions, compared to 26% who chose Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation election tracking poll released in mid-October.The consumer protections targeted by the administration are central to Obamacare and transformed the health insurance landscape. Their popularity is one of the main reasons GOP lawmakers had such difficulty repealing Obamacare last year."Guaranteed issue" requires insurers to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their medical history. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, insurers often rejected applicants who are or had been ill or offered them only limited coverage with high rates.Under the law's community rating provision, insurers are not allowed to set premiums based on a person's health history. And the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage meant that insurers cannot refuse to pay for treatments because of a policyholder's medical background.All these provisions meant millions of people with less-than-perfect health records could get comprehensive coverage. But they also have pushed up premiums for those who are young and healthy. This group would have likely been able to get less expensive policies that offered fewer benefits prior to Obamacare. That has put the measures in the crosshairs of Republicans seeking to repeal the law and lower premiums.It's no wonder that politicians on both sides of the aisle promised to protect those with pre-existing conditions during the election. Three-quarters of Americans say that it is "very important" for the law to continue prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage because of medical histories, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's September tracking poll -- 58% of Republicans feel the same way. And about the same share of Americans say it's "very important" that insurers continue to be barred from charging sick people more. 4383

来源：资阳报