the ALJ did not attempt such an explanation. To the contrary, this evidence supports claimant’s testimony. See SSR 96-7p at *7 (“In general, a longitudinal medical record demonstrating an individual’s attempts to seek medical treatment for pain or other symptoms and to follow that treatment once it is prescribed lends support to an individual’s allegations of intense or persistent pain or other symptoms for the purposes of judging the credibility of the individual’s statements.”). It was error for the ALJ to fail to expressly consider claimant’s persistent attempts to find relief from his pain, his willingness to try various treatments for his pain, and his frequent contact with physicians concerning his pain-related complaints. See Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1021 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Clifton, 79 F.3d at 1010 (ALJ must “discuss
holding the alj was permitted to consider fact claimant had not sought treatment for her alleged back pain holding it is error for an alj to fail to consider factors relevant to the pain analysis which are supported by the record holding that hypothetical question should have included allegations of pain which were supported by record holding that the alj did not err in discounting a claimants reports of pain where they were not supported by the medical record holding that where adequately supported credibility findings are for the alj to make