Vick

MEMORANDUM **

Joyce Vick appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner’s decision that Vick was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.

During the period in question, Vick was able to bowl at least once a week, babysit two small children on a regular basis, go on vacation with her husband in the car, go shopping with her daughter often, and grocery shop every week by herself or with her husband. Based on Vick’s ability to engage in such activities, *782 the finding that she is not disabled is not erroneous.

The ALJ also did not err in holding that Vick lacked a severe impairment. A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (c). Vick presented no medical evidence to prove that her impairments would have “more than a minimal effect” on her ability to work. Yuckert v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 303, 306 (9th Cir.1988). Although the record contains reports of Vick’s visits to various…