must have an individualized suspicion before requesting an independent medical examination. In this case the union contract limits the application of the statute to situations in which the state has an individualized suspicion. The contract says, in pertinent part, that the state may require a medical examination “[w]henever the State believes that an employee, due to illness or injury, is unable to perform his/her normal work duties.” 10 . There are other procedures that are also intrusive: for example a doctor’s use of a tongue depressor to permit him to look down a patient’s throat; or an instrument that permits him to peer into a patient’s ears; or a doctor's direction to a patient to partiaEy undress. 11 . See Doe v. Attorney General of U.S., 941 F.2d 780, 795-96 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also U.S. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
recognizing as a privacy right the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act holding that statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial holding that an inmate has a privacy interest in guarding against disclosure of sensitive medical information from other inmates subject to legitimate penological interests holding that individual has privacy interest in medical information including diagnosis