PHILIPSBURG:--- Shocking revelations have emerged in the ongoing case SXM202400625/202500427 before the Court of First Instance in Sint Maarten. Internationally certified ISO Lead Auditor and medical governance specialist Terence Jandroep has submitted documented evidence exposing that two physicians with significant disciplinary histories in the United States were actively engaged during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, raising grave concerns about patient safety and systemic governance failures.
SMMC Attorneys Attempt to Exclude Evidence, Threatening National Health Safety
The attorneys representing the Sint Maarten Medical Center (SMMC) are actively attempting to have Jandroep's crucial evidence dismissed by the Court on a technical basis. This maneuver, if successful, would exclude vital information pertaining to national health safety, a concern particularly highlighted by the fact that 92 patients died in Sint Maarten during the Pandemic.
First Physician: Unfit and Undisclosed High-Risk Procedures. Initially, Jandroep's court-filed root cause analysis and clinical governance audit uncovered an unqualified physician at the SMMC. This physician, whose U.S. medical license was voluntarily suspended (2019) and subsequently revoked (2020), deliberately omitted this vital information when renewing licenses in other States, all while actively performing high-risk intubation procedures. This alarming fact remained undisclosed and undetected for nearly five years. Jandroep's findings, based entirely on U.S. public disciplinary records, demonstrate that this physician in several US States:
- Had his license fully revoked for two years beginning in 2020 following the voluntary suspension of practice after a patient death incident linked to malpractice.
- Pled no contest to charges of malpractice before the Nevada State Medical Board with a Settlement Agreement.
- Was accused of sexual misbehavior in 2013 and 2020.
- Was found guilty of improper patient care and record keeping.
- Was sanctioned in multiple jurisdictions for submitting false or misleading information during license renewal.
- Deliberately failed to disclose his disciplinary history while continuing to practice under a subcontracting arrangement at SMMC.
The physician was subcontracted through a U.S. medical staffing agency. Critically, SMMC, as the host facility, allowed this physician to perform intubations, an extremely high-risk and invasive intervention, during one of the most vulnerable phases of the COVID-19 health emergency.
"The central failure was not the staffing alone, but the absence of effective governance. The oversight mechanisms required by ISO 7101 and ISO 9001 were nonexistent or bypassed entirely. There were ample opportunities to identify these disqualifications. Yet no alert was raised, internally or externally, despite publicly available U.S. records,” stated Jandroep.
The full disciplinary history of this physician, submitted by Jandroep as part of his court filing, includes:
- Certified disciplinary decisions from the Nevada, Michigan, New York, and Illinois State Medical Boards.
- Signed no-contest plea agreements related to medical malpractice.
- Investigations resulting in confirmed sexual misbehavior.
- License revocation orders stemming from malpractice and patient death.
- Notices of sanctions for filing deceptive licensing information.
- Chronological mapping of the physician’s employment timeline versus U.S. license status.
- Comparative analysis referencing deficiencies against ISO 7101:2023 and ISO 9001:2015 standards.
- Photographic evidence of additional misconduct (including previously reported “beer incidents”) never disclosed by the Medical institution.
Alarmingly, SMMC and its medical board failed to disclose any of these facts publicly or internally for more than four years. No alerts, internal inquiries, or risk communications were documented or shared concerning the beer-related events, the physician’s fitness to practice, or surrounding patient safety concerns. “If such risks remain hidden for this long, it raises the broader question of what else is being missed. This is not a one-off compliance slip, this is a systemic failure,” emphasized Jandroep.
Second Physician: Disciplinary Actions to "Protect the Public’s Health, Safety, and Welfare"
During his forensic investigation, Jandroep identified a second physician who had also been subject to disciplinary action by the Virginia, Delaware, and possibly New York Board of Medicine. The disciplinary measures were explicitly imposed on the grounds of: “Protecting the Public’s Health, Safety, and Welfare !!!”. Such grounds can entail gross negligence or incompetence, practicing while impaired (e.g., drugs, alcohol, mental instability), unlicensed or unauthorized practice, and ethical violations such as patient abuse or misconduct.
The presence of two U.S. doctors with this kind of disciplinary history, knowingly or unknowingly engaged by the local healthcare institution, raises extremely serious questions of due diligence, risks to patient safety, and potentially institutional liability.
Legal Ramifications and Accountability
Jandroep indicates that it is likely that SMMC was deceived by its U.S. medical staffing contractor, or the contractor may have omitted vital information about the physician’s record, in which case numerous grounds may exist for a civil action under U.S. law. “This opens a clear legal window for a negligence lawsuit against the staffing agency and the physicians in the United States,” said the Risk Analyst.
Conversely, should it be proven that the agency provided the full disclosure, and local authorities nonetheless overlooked the inherent risks, the implications point to a critical, catastrophic failure of medical governance squarely on Sint Maarten's shoulders. Furthermore, any defending attorneys attempting to present misleading information or conceal evidence of gross mismanagement, especially when contrary evidence exists, face severe ramifications. This behavior aligns with "selling a spoiled product to the court" and constitutes a breach of legal and ethical duties. Legal consequences can include disciplinary action (reprimands, suspension, or disbarment), civil liability for professional negligence or fraud, criminal charges in serious cases, and contempt of court penalties. The presence of clear evidence makes such attempts to mislead even more perilous for the defending attorneys. The court will assess whether procedural and factual omissions, or any attempts to misrepresent the situation, warrant corrective judicial review and other legal consequences.
All records used in the case and this article are drawn from official and publicly available U.S. state disciplinary databases, shielding Jandroep from all liability or defamation concerns. The ongoing case, by sparking renewed debate on SMMC’s risk management and the broader transparency of healthcare operations in Sint Maarten, draws attention to the island's perplexing distinction of having the highest per capita COVID-19 death rate in the Dutch Kingdom. Jandroep's current 353-page analysis indicates an inability to conclusively determine whether these Pandemic deaths were exclusively from COVID or of an inconclusive nature; however, the sheer volume of fatalities suggests the strong possibility of additional, unaddressed motives influencing these disturbing per capita figures in Sint Maarten.
The Court of First Instance is scheduled to render its verdict in proceedings SXM202400625/202500427 on May 27, 2025. Further hearings are indeed justified to assess whether the 26 procedural and factual omissions identified in the original verdict, recently acknowledged in court, warrant corrective judicial review; however, it remains uncertain if the Court will take that specific route.
