IBJNews

State appeals court sets hearing on IBM welfare lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has set a November hearing in the state's legal fight with IBM Corp. over a failed attempt to overhaul the state's welfare system.

The state is appealing a Marion County judge's ruling last year awarding $52 million to IBM after then-Gov. Mitch Daniels canceled what was a 10-year, $1.37 billion contract to process applications for food stamps, Medicaid and other programs.

A three-judge appeals court panel is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case Nov. 25.

State officials sought to recoup roughly $170 million from IBM, but the judge ruled last July Indiana failed to prove the company breached its contract.

Marion County Judge David Dreyer said in his 75-page order that neither side deserved to win the dispute.

"Overall, both parties are to blame and Indiana's taxpayers are left as apparent losers," Dreyer wrote, blaming "misguided government policy and overzealous corporate ambition."

A team of vendors led by IBM in 2006 was awarded a 10-year, $1.37 billion contract to process applications for food stamps, Medicaid, and other public safety net benefits. The deal introduced call centers, the Internet and fax machines as means to apply for benefits and removed specific state case workers assigned to each household.

The changes drew fire from lawmakers, welfare clients and their advocates, who claimed the new system lost necessary documents, left telephone callers on hold for long periods, reduced or eliminated face-to-face contact with case workers. Daniels killed the deal in 2009, after less than three years.

Indiana initially sued IBM for $437 million, which was later reduced to about $170 million. IBM countersued for about $100 million that it claimed it was owed.

Dreyer said Indiana set out to fix the previous welfare system, which Daniels called the worst in the nation, by "inserting an untested theoretical experiment, and substitute personal caseworkers with computers and phone calls.

"This is now admitted to be an error, and there is nothing in this case, or the court's power, that can be done to correct it, or remedy the lost taxpayer money or personal suffering of needy Hoosiers," he wrote.

Indiana failed to prove that IBM breached its contract, Dreyer said, and he denied the state the money it sought.

Dreyer also found that most of IBM's claims for damages were "unreasonable" but awarded the Armonk, N.Y.-based company $12 million, mostly for equipment the state kept. IBM previously had previously received $40 million in a summary judgment ahead of the trial.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT