Loginov v. Sheridan Memorial Hospital: Tenth Circuit Affirms Broad Wyoming COVID-19 Health-Care Immunity and Reinforces Strict Rule 56(d) Affidavit Requirement

Introduction

In Loginov v. Sheridan Memorial Hospital, No. 24-8032 (10th Cir. July 10 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit examined whether Wyoming’s COVID-19 civil-immunity statutes shield a hospital from ordinary-negligence claims arising out of post-COVID treatment, and whether the district court prematurely granted summary judgment before discovery closed. The plaintiff, William Loginov, alleged that the Hospital’s negligent correction of hyponatremia after a COVID-19 diagnosis caused him to develop osmotic demyelination syndrome (“ODS”). The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the Hospital was statutorily immune and that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) for additional discovery.

On appeal, Loginov advanced three arguments:

The district court erred in ruling before discovery concluded.
The court improperly relied on an affidavit from the Hospital’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Luke Goddard.
The court misinterpreted Wyoming’s COVID-19 immunity provisions.

The Tenth Circuit, per Judge Eid (Kelly & Carson, JJ., concurring), affirmed on all grounds, creating an influential precedent on (i) the breadth of Wyoming’s pandemic-era immunity scheme, and (ii) the procedural rigor required of parties invoking Rule 56(d).

Summary of the Judgment

Discovery Issue: Absent a compliant Rule 56(d) affidavit detailing the need for additional discovery, a district court may rule on summary judgment even early in discovery.
Affidavit Challenge: Dr. Goddard’s affidavit met Rule 56(c)(4) standards—personal knowledge inferred from record review, facts admissible via business-records exception, and competency of affiant.
Wyoming COVID-19 Immunity: The broad text of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 35-4-114(d) & 1-1-141(a)(iii)(B) grants immunity unless the plaintiff pleads and proves gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct. Loginov alleged only ordinary negligence; therefore, the Hospital was immune under “any reasonable interpretation” of state law.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) – established that summary judgment should be denied when the nonmovant lacks adequate discovery, but also recognized discretion when the nonmovant fails to show necessity.
Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc., 855 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2017) – emphasized the need for a Rule 56(d) affidavit; relied on here to reject Loginov’s discovery complaint.
Adams v. C3 Pipeline Construction Inc., 30 F.4th 943 (10th Cir. 2021) – reaffirmed that Rule 56(d), not an arbitrary discovery cutoff, governs timing objections.
Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 452 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2006) – standard of review for evidentiary rulings on summary judgment, guiding acceptance of Dr. Goddard’s affidavit.
State interpretive guides, e.g., Redco Construction v. Profile Properties, LLC, 271 P.3d 408 (Wyo. 2012), directing statutory analysis starting with plain meaning.
Out-of-circuit “Rule 56(d) opportunity” caselaw, CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin, 538 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2008), cited by Loginov but distinguished.

Legal Reasoning

1. Rule 56(d) Strictness

The court treated Rule 56(d) as jurisdictional in effect: without a sworn declaration listing (i) specific facts sought, (ii) reasons they were unavailable, (iii) how they would create a triable issue, the nonmovant’s plea for more discovery fails. Loginov’s mere assertions within his brief did not substitute for the sworn, particularized affidavit required. Relying on Cerveny, the panel refused to “look beyond the affidavit.”

2. Admissibility of Dr. Goddard’s Affidavit

Rule 56(c)(4) demands personal knowledge, admissible facts, and competency. The opinion reasoned that a chief medical officer gains personal knowledge through review of contemporaneous medical charts (treated as business records, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)). The affidavit’s sole legal conclusion (Paragraph 20) was disregarded, but the factual narrative of treatment remained. Consequently, the district court’s reliance did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

3. Wyoming’s COVID-19 Immunity Framework

At the statutory core lies § 35-4-114(d), granting immunity to “any health care provider” for a “COVID-19 liability claim” unless gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct is proved. A “COVID-19 liability claim” (§ 1-1-141(a)(iii)(B)) encompasses:

“Acts or omissions by a health care facility or provider in arranging for or providing health care services… or where the response to COVID-19 reasonably interfered with arranging/providing such services.”

The panel gave two alternative readings:

Literal/Expansive: The first clause confers blanket immunity for all acts of providing care during the covered period; COVID-19 nexus need not be explicit.
Contextual/Narrow: Even if a nexus is required, hyponatremia was a COVID-related complication, and the failed transfer attempt was directly impeded by pandemic hospital-capacity constraints.

Under both interpretations, immunity applied. The court rejected the “absurdity” canon advanced by Loginov, noting the exceptional rarity of that doctrine and the plausible legislative goal of protecting strained healthcare systems.

Impact of the Decision

Substantive Tort Law: Clinches a broad shield for Wyoming healthcare providers sued in federal court for ordinary negligence arising during the pandemic. Plaintiffs must plead gross negligence or worse to survive early dispositive motions.
Civil Procedure: Reinforces a strict, formalistic application of Rule 56(d) across the Tenth Circuit. Lawyers must file a detailed affidavit/declaration—argumentative briefs alone will not stay summary judgment.
Evidence Practice: Confirms that affidavits based on review of business records satisfy “personal knowledge,” undermining frequent challenges to affidavits by institutional representatives.
Public-Health Emergency Litigation: Offers predictive guidance for other states with similar pandemic immunity statutes; defense counsel will cite Loginov to argue for early dismissal/summary judgment.
Legislative Drafting: Signals to Wyoming lawmakers that courts will enforce even sweeping immunity language absent textual ambiguity. Calls for statutory amendment, not judicial narrowing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Hyponatremia: A potentially life-threatening drop in blood sodium; rapid correction can itself cause neurological damage.
Osmotic Demyelination Syndrome (ODS): Destruction of the myelin sheath in brain stem neurons, often precipitated by overly rapid sodium correction; manifests as speech/swallowing problems.
Gross Negligence vs. Ordinary Negligence: Ordinary negligence is a failure to exercise reasonable care; gross negligence denotes a conscious, voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care—closer to recklessness.
Rule 56(c)(4) Affidavit Requirements: Statements must (i) be based on personal knowledge, (ii) set out admissible facts, (iii) show competency of the witness.
Rule 56(d) Relief: A formal mechanism to request more discovery, requiring a sworn statement specifying (a) facts not yet available, (b) why unavailable, (c) how they would defeat summary judgment.
Absurdity Doctrine: A narrow judicial canon allowing departure from plain statutory text only when literal application produces an outcome the legislature could not possibly have intended.

Conclusion

Loginov v. Sheridan Memorial Hospital is a multifaceted precedent. Substantively, it treats Wyoming’s pandemic immunity statute as a near-total bar against ordinary negligence suits, thereby safeguarding healthcare entities from a surge of COVID-era malpractice claims. Procedurally, it crystallizes two Tenth Circuit rules: parties must lodge a precise Rule 56(d) affidavit to forestall early summary judgment, and affidavits anchored in business records withstand personal-knowledge challenges.

The ruling strikes a deliberate balance between pandemic-induced public-policy concerns—protecting over-burdened medical providers—and plaintiffs’ access to courts. Its importance reaches beyond Wyoming: litigants throughout the Tenth Circuit (and courts nationally interpreting similar statutes) will look to Loginov for guidance on statutory immunity, discovery timing, and the evidentiary sufficiency of affidavits.