查帳覆函(致香港會計師)

 

General Conference Auditing Service

12/F, Citimark, 28 Yuen Shun Circuit,

Siu Lek Yuen, Shatin, N.T.,

Hong Kong

May 13, 2008

Re.: Response to your audit inquiry letter in connection 

         with Taiwan ○○ Hospital’s financial statement.        

 

Dear Sirs:

 

We have been requested to supply you with certain information as to your audit of Taiwan ○○ Hospital’s(the T.○. Hospital) financial statement.

 

While our firm represents the T.○. Hospital on a regular basis, our engagement has been limited to specific matters as to which we were consulted by the T. ○. Hospital.There may be matters of a legal nature which could have a bearing on the T. ○. Hospital’s financial condition.

 

Subject to the foregoing, please be advised that we have been engaged by the T. ○. Hospital to provide them with legal consultation service during the whole year of 2008. There will be 34 hours for legal consulting service, and the T. ○. Hospital had prepaid for our service charge on February 29, 2008.In addition,there are 5.5 hours of legal consulting service had been used up to present.

 

Furthermore, we advise you that we have been engaged by the T.○. Hospital to give substantive attention to or to represent them in connection with litigation till December 31, 2007. As for during the period from January 1, 2007 to the effective date of our response,there are still three asserted claims that we had been engaged by the T.○. Hospital.

 

1.The Hsieh ○○-○○ case:

Hsieh ○○-○○ asserted that the T.○. Hospital and the nurse Huang ○○-○○ should be responsible for his skin hurt of “The Scratch of the Newborn on the brow”. He claimed compensatory damages amounted to NTD1,360,384 and punitive damages amounted to NTD1,360,384. Because he claimed exceeding fee, it is impossible to make two parties to a compromise.According to his actual loss(recover psychological injury,and the punitive damages is unresonable),the potential loss of the T.○. Hospital is roughly less than NTD500,000.

 

2. The Wang ○○-○○ case:

Wang ○○-○○ was seriously hurt by anaesthesia during operation in the Che ○○-○○ Clinic,therefore she claimed against the Che ○○-○○ Clinic and the doctor Wang ○○-○○ damages amounted to NTD28,800,244.Furthermore, she asserted that doctor Wang had ever been hired by the T.○. Hospital,so she regarded the T.○. Hospital as the joint tortfeasor.But in fact,Dr.Wang is not on the behavior of the T.○. Hospital to execute his duties in the T.○. Hospital. Thus, this case has nothing to do with the T.○. Hospital. It is less likely to lose the lawsuit.

 

3.The Li ○○-○○ and Li ○○-○○ case:

Hsueh Hsueh-Li had been treated in the T.○. Hospital due to the breast cancer.But she died after left for another hospital(Taipei Veterans General  Hospital).The plaintiff Li ○○-○○ and Li ○○-○○ are Hsueh ○○-○○´s husband and son,and they asserted that the death was caused by the negligence of the T.○. Hospital and the doctor Hsieh ○○-○○. Therefore, Li ○○-○○ claimed against the T.○. Hospital and the doctor Hsieh ○○-○○ damages amounted to NTD3,540,117 ,and Li ○○-○○ claimed damages amounted to NTD3,130,882. Afterward they lost the lawsuit by the judgement of First Instance of the Taiwan Taipei District Court and then appeal to a higher court up to now.In addition ,the result is not predictable since this case is involved with medical expertise.We have to wait for medical expert testimony from the professional institution.

 

This response is pursuant to the T.○. Hospital’s request, and this will confirm as correct the T.○. Hospital’s understanding as set forth in its audit inquiry letter to us that whenever, in the course of performing legal services for the T.○. Hospital with respect to a matter recognized by us to involve an unasserted possible claim or assessment that may call for financial statement disclosure, we have formed a professional conclusion that the T.○. Hospital need not disclose or consider disclosure concerning such possible claim or assessment.

 

As of the effective date of our response, the T.○. Hospital was not indebted to us for any legal services rendered.

 

The information set forth herein is as of May 13, 2008, except as otherwise noted, and we disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise you of changes which may thereafter be brought to our attention.

 

This letter is solely for your information in connection with your audit of the financial statement otherwise referred to in any financial statements of the T.○. Hospital or the related documents, nor is it to be filed with any governmental agency or other person, without the prior written consent of this hospital. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this letter may be furnished to others in compliance with court process or in connection with any challenge regarding your audit by the T.○. Hospital or a regulatory agency.

 

Unless otherwise specified above, this letter related only to the T.○. Hospital and not to its subsidiaries or affiliates, if any.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

                          

Attorney-at-Law

cc.: Taiwan○○Hospital