What the State announced
On July 2, 2026, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced a $710,815.34 settlement under the Connecticut False Claims Act with Trading Spaces ABA, LLC, which the release describes as a defunct former provider of autism behavioral services, and with its owner, Glenroy Patterson. According to the release, Patterson was a licensed, Connecticut Medical Assistance Program enrolled Board Certified Behavior Analyst and the sole owner of Trading Spaces, an autism specialty group in Glastonbury.
The State alleged that the defendants knew that claims they submitted or caused to be submitted to the Connecticut Medical Assistance Program, including Medicaid, were false. The claims were for autism treatment services that were never provided, for beneficiaries under 21 diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, between January 2017 and December 2021. The State says no patient records or notes supported the billed services.
The criminal case and how the amount was set
The release says Patterson pleaded no contest to Medicaid fraud charges, was sentenced in Hartford Superior Court on June 4, 2026, and paid $102,084.17 in criminal restitution. It says the civil settlement amount reflects treble damages and per-claim civil penalties tied to the claims and patients in that criminal case.
The release credits the Attorney General's office, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, and the Department of Social Services Special Investigations Division. It states no compliance terms, no payment schedule, and no exclusion from Medicaid.
What we have not verified
We have not seen the settlement agreement, so we cannot say whether it contains admissions, a payment schedule, an exclusion, or any release of other claims. We have not read the criminal docket. The HHS OIG listing repeats the amount and the allegation but gives no period, so the January 2017 to December 2021 period rests on the press release alone. We do not know how the case began.
Analysis: The State's theory is the simplest one in ABA enforcement: billed sessions with no contemporaneous record behind them. The release does not say the services were delivered poorly or billed at the wrong code; it says they were not provided and not documented. The amount also shows how the penalties scale. The settlement is stated as treble damages plus per-claim penalties on the claims in the criminal case, so a few years of unsupported billing for a small practice produced a figure well above the restitution. For a buyer, lender, or auditor, the diligence question is concrete: pick a sample of billed sessions and ask for the session note, the signed attendance record, and the rendering provider's schedule for the same date. An owner who is also the enrolled clinician and controls the records is the profile where that sample matters most.
This brief rests on the primary source linked above. Education only; nothing here is legal advice.
ABAWiser provides research, analysis, and compliance advisory services. We are not a law firm, we do not provide legal advice, and no engagement creates an attorney client relationship. Dossiers track developments as they occur and may be incomplete or updated as a story evolves. Confirm any statutory or regulatory point against the primary source before acting on it.