As stated above, Plaintiff argues that "[b]ecause a cause of action for negligent staffing against healthcare providers does not exist under Kansas law, it was clear error for this Court to deny Plaintiff's motion to compel on grounds that there was potential for CarePoint to be sued for its independent liability in staffing decisions." (Doc. 378, at 1 (citing Cady v. Schroll, 298 Kan. 731, 745, 317 P.3d 90, 100 (2014) (reaffirming K.S.A. 4-3403(h) prohibits negligent staffing/hiring claims); Lemuz v. Fieser, 261 Kan. 936, 940-42, 933 P.2d 134, 139-40 (1997) (holding 40-3403(h) prohibits negligent staffing claims); McVay v. Rich, 874 P.2d 641, 645 (Kan. 1994) (holding 40-3403(h) prohibits negligent staffing claims because it "eliminates not only vicarious liability but also responsibility for any injury arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services by another health care provider who is also covered by the fund."); Harris v. Hood, No. 08-2386-EFM, 2009 WL 1421205, at *4 (D. Kan. May 20, 2009) (holding 40-3403(h) bars negligent staffing claims).) Plaintiff is correct that "the common interest doctrine is inapplicable between a defendant-employee and thirdparty employer when the employer is immune from the acts of its employee."