In Chinese: http://news.hkheadline.com/dailynews/content_hk/2013/10/08/257469.asp
The aircraft on Oct 7 at around 8:30am local time was pushed back into a building and suffering tail damage as a result. There was a pic of the tail damage on the print edition of the newspaper, but not the online edition.
I'm wondering why the aircraft was there, as it's not the one used on the SFO routes. No flight delays or cancellation as a result.
Do you even know what happened on JAL123? It was the pressure bulkhead that caused the crash, not the vertical stabilizer.
The explosive decompression which occurred as a result of the aft pressure bulkhead failing ripped the vertical stabilizer off. It was because of the loss of vertical stabilizer and consequently hydraulics that the plane crashed (or the hydraulics might have been damaged during the explosive decompression). All this was caused by an improperly repaired tail following a tail strike many years earlier.
You can fly a plane unpressurized, but it's much harder to fly a plane without hydraulics (I think a DHL plane in Iraq was the only jumbo jet to do it successfully). All this to say that it's a fair statement to be worried about an improperly done repair causing problems later. But, I would really hope lessons have been learned and repair procedures are much better now.