opinions are entitled to controlling weight. If the ALJ finds that any of these opinions is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ needs to explain the basis for that finding. IV. The ALJ’s Credibility Determination Is Not “Patently Wrong.” Ulloa contends that the ALJ erred in rejecting his credibility. Ulloa argues that several factors in the record support his credibility, including: the opinions of his treating physicians, an MRI showing a herniated disc, his complaints of ongoing pain and dizziness, prescribed medication to alleviate the pain, as well as his pursuit of significant treatment over time. To succeed on this ground, Ulloa must overcome a highly deferential standard that we accord credibility determinations. See Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 435 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). We will reverse an ALJ’s credibility
holding that the jurys resolution of questions of credibility and demean or  is entitled to special deference  holding that the credibility determinations by the board are virtually unreviewable holding that the credibility determinations of hearing officers are afforded special deference holding that credibility determinations are reviewed only for substantial evidence holding that credibility determinations are for the jury