Court Reopens Jandroep v. SMMC After Forensic Audit Reveals 26 Critical Omissions
In a pivotal turn of events, the Court of First Instance in Sint Maarten has reopened the civil lawsuit filed by Terence Jandroep against the Sint Maarten Medical Center (SMMC). The case, originally registered under number SXM202400625 and now reassigned as SXM202500427, returns to the docket after Jandroep uncovered 26 major omissions in the court’s original ruling.
Risk Analyst Behind Revelations
The driving force behind this reversal is Terence Jandroep himself—a certified Colombian Risk Analyst and independent litigant. Unlike a typical plaintiff, Jandroep is trained in forensic auditing and governance analysis. He conducted a detailed audit of the case and identified serious gaps in the court’s assessment.
His forensic audit highlighted 17 medical incidents during his hospitalization that had not been acknowledged by the court. Alarmingly, 14 of these incidents took place within just 48 hours while he was receiving treatment for COVID-19. These missing details raised concerns about the court’s objectivity and brought attention to potential weaknesses in SMMC’s internal controls.
Custom Audit Framework Exposes Systemic Failures
To investigate the case, Jandroep developed a specialized forensic audit system based on international risk and compliance standards. His approach was methodical and multi-layered. He focused on:
Tracing missing documentation
Verifying unreported incidents
Identifying root causes of systemic breakdowns
Mapping governance and compliance failures
This wasn’t just a civil complaint—it evolved into a forensic analysis of institutional oversight. Jandroep explained, “This case isn’t only about my personal experience. It’s about what the hospital didn’t document—and what the court didn’t acknowledge. My findings are grounded in traceability and hard evidence, not opinion.”
Expertise Overlooked by Court and Hospital
At the beginning of the proceedings, neither the court nor SMMC realized the depth of Jandroep’s expertise. With extensive qualifications in Medical Governance and Chain Supply Security Management, he possesses auditing skills that surpass those typically found in Caribbean legal and healthcare settings.
His submissions didn’t follow traditional legal formats. Instead, they were built on evidentiary models designed to expose institutional failures. Initially, the court did not fully engage with this technical material. That changed only after the audit’s findings became undeniable.
Implications for Legal and Institutional Accountability
The decision to reopen Jandroep v. SMMC could mark a turning point in how courts handle technically specialized evidence. It pushes the judiciary to reconsider how it evaluates claims that involve forensic and compliance methodologies rather than legal arguments alone.
For SMMC, the renewed proceedings bring serious compliance and reputational risks. For the court, the case now serves as a litmus test for its procedural fairness and willingness to confront structured technical critiques.
More broadly, this case highlights a crucial gap in how institutions manage evidence, oversight, and accountability. It raises urgent questions: What happens when traditional legal mechanisms overlook key facts? And how should courts respond when independent audits reveal structural blind spots.
https://sxmnews.ai/latest-sxm-news-ricardo-york-st-maarten/