NOSSCR Board Dispute: The Keeve–Liner Lawsuit and Its Resolution

Updated October 17, 2026: This report retains its original 2025 publication date and now incorporates the court records identified below.

Natalie J. Keeve and Michael Liner sued the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives and Paul Burkhalter in D.C. Superior Court on February 4, 2025. Case 2025-CAB-000647 concerned their participation on NOSSCR’s board and access to financial records. The public docket now marks it closed following a June 10, 2026 settlement stipulation.

What the Board Members Asked For

The original complaint alleged that Keeve and Liner were restricted from board activities after pressing for investigation of concerns about donations and financial oversight. They asked the court to restore their full board rights, require compliance with NOSSCR’s removal procedures, and order access to accounting records. Those allegations described their case; they were not established financial findings.

NOSSCR disputed that account. In a January 24, 2025 letter filed with the complaint, its counsel said the restrictions were justified by alleged conflicts of interest and conduct contrary to the organization’s interests. The letter denied that questions about executive finances caused the restrictions and said NOSSCR was reviewing those financial allegations.

What the Court Actually Ordered

After a February 6 hearing, Judge Ebony M. Scott issued a written temporary restraining order on February 7. The court found a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs would succeed on their challenge to the removal procedures, including inadequate notice and insufficient opportunity to respond. It barred suspension or removal and preserved the plaintiffs’ full board rights for the period specified in the order.

This was meaningful temporary relief. It was not a final judgment deciding whether money had been misused. The order addressed the immediate board dispute while the litigation continued; its original end point was the next hearing or a later time the parties mutually agreed.

How the Case Ended

The June 10, 2026 stipulation calls for dismissal of the entire action with prejudice under a confidential written settlement. It says the parties settled the claims and counterclaims asserted, or that could have been asserted, in the action. It generally assigns each party its own costs, expenses and attorney fees, subject to anything different in the confidential agreement.

The public filing does not disclose a payment amount or an admission of wrongdoing. It asks the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement; that request alone should not be described as a separate order granting enforcement jurisdiction. The docket records a settlement closure, rather than a trial verdict on the underlying financial accusations.

How to Follow the Related Coverage

The board case is distinct from Melissa Nyman’s membership case and Insurance Branch’s contract case. Compare the parties, case number and particular order before drawing a conclusion from a headline. These records concern organizational disputes; they do not decide any reader’s SSDI or SSI application.

Related Reading

• The Financial-Records Dispute
• The TRO and Motion to Dismiss
• The Nyman Turkish Case Timeline
• Understanding Disability Appeals

Primary Sources

Records checked October 17, 2026. The court portal lists filings under “Events and Orders of the Court.” For Superior Court records, open the public case page and find the named document and date. Search by case number if the page does not open.

• Keeve–Liner Complaint, Filed February 4, 2025
• NOSSCR Counsel’s January 24, 2025 Letter, Complaint Exhibit F
• Judge Scott’s February 7, 2025 Temporary Restraining Order
• Keeve–Liner Stipulation of Dismissal, June 10, 2026
• D.C. Superior Court Public Docket, 2025-CAB-000647

This is general reporting on public court records, not advice about an individual disability claim. A filing describes a party’s position unless this article identifies a court ruling.