LONDON, January 6- Former Chelsea team doctor Eva Carneiro attended a tribunal hearing on Wednesday regarding her constructive dismissal case against the club.
Wearing a long, grey coat and holding hands with her husband, Carneiro made no comment to the media as she arrived for the hearing flanked by her legal team in Croydon, south London.
The preliminary hearing at London South Employment Tribunal is being held in private before an employment judge and will outline the timetable for the case.
Carneiro, 42, left Chelsea in September after being removed from first-team duties by manager Jose Mourinho, who was sacked by the Premier League champions last month.
Mourinho had rebuked her and physiotherapist Jon Fearn for running onto the pitch to treat Eden Hazard during his side’s 2-2 draw with Swansea City on the season’s opening day, which temporarily left Chelsea with nine men.
Mourinho called Carneiro and Fearn “impulsive and naive”, but the Premier League Doctors’ Group said failure to treat Hazard would have been a breach of their care of duty.
Wednesday’s hearing will also address witness statements and the disclosure of documents from each side, as well as any legal disputes that may exist between them over procedural matters.
Reports suggest a date for a full hearing could be fixed for June, but the parties may agree to a settlement before the case is heard.
Carneiro is also believed to have tabled a separate legal claim against Mourinho for alleged victimisation and discrimination.
Mourinho was cleared by the Football Association of making discriminatory remarks to Carneiro.
But she complained that she had not been asked by the FA to make a statement about what had happened.
“I was surprised to learn that the FA was allegedly investigating the incident of August 8 (the date of the Swansea game) via the press,” Carneiro said. “I was at no stage requested by the FA to make a statement.
“I wonder whether this might be the only formal investigation in this country where the evidence of the individuals involved in the incident was not considered relevant.”