An ALJ “may need to contact the individual regarding the lack of treatment or, at an administrative proceeding, ask why he or she has not complied with or sought treatment in a manner consistent with his or her complaints.” Id. See also Desiderio v. Comm r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-17-04058-PHX-BSB, 2019 WL 549458, at *10 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2019) (finding that a one-year gap in treatment was insufficient to justify an ALJ discounting a plaintiff's symptom testimony where the ALJ did not inquire about the gaps or inconsistencies at the hearing, and cited to no evidence in the record that may explain the gaps). Here, like the ALJ in Desiderio, who did not inquire about treatment gaps during the hearing or cite to evidence in the record that may explain the gaps, the ALJ in this case provided no context to Plaintiff's one-year gap, her lack of attendance at physical therapy sessions, or her alleged “somewhat noncompliance” with home exercises.

An ALJ “may need to contact the individual regarding the lack of treatment or, at an administrative proceeding, ask why he or she has not complied with or sought treatment in a manner consistent with his or her complaints.” Id. See also, Desiderio v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-17-04058-PHX-BSB, 2019 WL 549458, at *10 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2019) (finding that a one-year gap in treatment was insufficient to justify an ALJ discounting a plaintiff's symptom testimony where the ALJ did not inquire about the gaps or inconsistencies at the hearing, and cited to no evidence in the record that may explain the gaps).

However, the key requirement in this scenario is for the ALJ to explain why evidence of improvement in certain areas negates the opinions of a providers. Desiderio v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-17-04058-PHX-BSB, 2019 WL 549458, at *7 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2019) (remanding for an award of benefits where “the ALJ did not explain why evidence of improvement [ ] undermined Dr. Neufeld's opinions regarding Plaintiff's concentration, persistence, and pace in a work setting.”); see also Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that a “[provider's] statements must be read in context of the overall diagnostic picture he draws.