Melissa Nyman’s NOSSCR Membership Lawsuit: Claims and Outcome

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

Melissa Nyman and Nyman Turkish P.C. filed a membership-related lawsuit against NOSSCR, David Camp and Paul Burkhalter on February 17, 2025. The complaint was entered on the docket the following day as 2025-CAB-000940. The action later closed after a June 10, 2026 settlement stipulation.

The Membership Dispute

The original complaint said Nyman submitted renewal materials and dues in January 2025, then received a February 3 message declining her membership application. The plaintiffs described that action as a wrongful rescission of existing membership and alleged that it retaliated against colleagues who had questioned NOSSCR’s financial oversight.

The membership message, reproduced in the complaint, described the matter differently: NOSSCR said online submission and payment did not establish membership without approval. It said it would refund the payment and would not provide further review of that decision. The parties disagreed about which membership process applied.

What the Plaintiffs Sought

Nyman and the firm requested restoration of full membership rights and challenged the process under NOSSCR’s bylaws. Their original six-count complaint also asserted contract, good-faith, fiduciary-duty, emotional-distress and negligence claims. The requested damages and remedies were claims for relief, not awards already made by the court.

NOSSCR disputed the plaintiffs’ account. In its February 7, 2025 response letter, attached as Exhibit M, its counsel disagreed with both the factual narrative and the proposed reading of the bylaws. The public docket also records defense motions and later amended pleadings; the original complaint was the starting point of a contested case.

The June 2026 Resolution

The June 10 stipulation states that the action is to be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety under a confidential written settlement. It says the remaining parties consented and had settled claims and counterclaims asserted, or that could have been asserted, in this action. The docket marks the case closed under a settlement category.

The filing does not disclose a settlement payment, an admission, or the confidential agreement’s terms concerning membership. It therefore does not establish Nyman’s present membership status. Nor should the old allegations be described as a trial finding that retaliation or financial misconduct occurred.

Why the Case Numbers Matter

Nyman’s membership suit was separate from the earlier Keeve–Liner board case, although the complaints described related events. The February 7 board-member order belonged to case 000647. Readers should not assume that it automatically granted the relief later requested in case 000940.

Related Reading

• The Emergency-Relief Request
• Key Dates in the Membership Case
• The Separate Board Dispute
• 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.

• Nyman Turkish and Melissa Nyman Complaint, Filed February 17, 2025
• NOSSCR Counsel’s February 7, 2025 Letter, Complaint Exhibit M
• Nyman Turkish Stipulation of Dismissal, June 10, 2026
• D.C. Superior Court Public Docket, 2025-CAB-000940
• Judge Scott’s February 7, 2025 Temporary Restraining Order

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.