See Francis Egg Farm v. Durrance, 169 Ga. App. 879 ( 315 S.E.2d 436) (1984) (construing OCGA § 34-9-105). Compare Rowell v. Transport Ins. Co., 153 Ga. App. 456 ( 265 S.E.2d 364) (1980) (construing OCGA § 34-9-105); Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 248 (1) ( 141 S.E.2d 223) (1965) (construing OCGA § 34-9-105). Estoppel is a question for the trior of fact unless it can be unequivocally established.

[Cit.]" Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 248 ( 141 S.E.2d 223) (1965). Based upon the erroneous legal theory that it was not "newly discovered evidence," the Board in the instant case failed to consider the physician's subsequent medical opinion as to the causation of appellee's vision loss.

Lockhart v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 141 Ga. App. 476, 478-479 (1) ( 233 S.E.2d 810). If it is disclosed that the board decided the case on an erroneous legal theory or improperly applied the law to the facts, the superior court should remand the case to the board for further findings and consideration. See Barbree v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 105 Ga. App. 186 ( 123 S.E.2d 905); Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 246-248 (1) ( 141 S.E.2d 223); Fidelity c. Co. v. Hodges, 108 Ga. App. 474 (1) ( 133 S.E.2d 406); Hudson v. Taylor, 88 Ga. App. 575, 577 ( 77 S.E.2d 100). Further, if the findings of fact are erroneous, the case should be resubmitted to the board for further consideration.

Accordingly, a finding that the evidence afforded no reasonable explanation of privately motivated murder was error. Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 248 ( 141 S.E.2d 223) (1965). 2.

Barbree v. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co., 105 Ga. App. 186 ( 123 S.E.2d 905)." Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 247 ( 141 S.E.2d 223). Judgment reversed with direction it be remanded to the board for further findings in conformance with this opinion.

Claimant testified it was due to his head injury. Nevertheless, it is clear that the claim was denied on an erroneous legal theory requiring a reversal and a remand to the board for proper consideration of the claim and because the board has failed to consider all of the evidence presented to it by the claimant. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cline, 138 Ga. App. 778, 781 (2) ( 227 S.E.2d 405); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Nobles, 147 Ga. App. 81 ( 248 S.E.2d 160); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Jones, 125 Ga. App. 471 ( 188 S.E.2d 180); Barbree v. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co., 105 Ga. App. 186, 187-188 ( 123 S.E.2d 905); Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 248(1) ( 141 S.E.2d 223); Williams v. Morrison Assurance Co., 138 Ga. App. 191, 193 (1) ( 225 S.E.2d 778). Judgment reversed with direction. Smith and Banke, JJ., concur.

The superior court, as well as the board, erred in determining there was no employee/employer relationship between the claimant and the carrier (Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.). Barbree v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 105 Ga. App. 186, 188 ( 123 S.E.2d 905); Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 248 ( 141 S.E.2d 223); Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., 123 Ga. App. 512 ( 181 S.E.2d 874); Fleming v. U.S. Fidelity c. Co., 137 Ga. App. 492 (2) ( 224 S.E.2d 127). I therefore respectfully dissent.

Thus, since reputation in the community as to marital status is relevant and should be received to establish a contended marriage as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, the award was based on an erroneous legal theory which precluded evidence that would have authorized a contrary result and was harmful error. Also, the erroneous interpretation of Rainey, supra, indicates that the ALJ did not consider the evidence "... in the light of correct and applicable legal principles..." Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 248 ( 141 S.E.2d 223) (1965). Therefore, the judgment of the superior court remanding the case to the board with direction that the ALJ fully consider the excluded testimony, assigning to it such weight as he sees fit, and after consideration make new findings of fact and conclusions of law, is correct.

The court, having rested its judgment on reasons which are erroneous or upon an erroneous legal theory, committed reversible error. Carter v. State, 93 Ga. App. 12, 21 ( 90 S.E.2d 672); Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 248 ( 141 S.E.2d 223); Williams v. Morrison Assur. Co., 138 Ga. App. 191, 193 (1) ( 225 S.E.2d 778); Smith v. Helms, 140 Ga. App. 267 (3). 2.

However, it is apparent that the court considered the lease valid and enforceable in making its findings of fact. Ordinarily, a judgment right for any reason must be affirmed, but where it is apparent that the court rests its judgment on reasons which are erroneous or upon an erroneous legal theory, it commits reversible error. Carter v. State, 93 Ga. App. 12, 21 ( 90 S.E.2d 672); Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 245, 248 ( 141 S.E.2d 223); Williams v. Morrison Assur. Co., 138 Ga. App. 191, 193 (1) ( 225 S.E.2d 778). Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded in order for the court to make proper findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence before it and the law. 4. The enumerations of error as to the letter exhibits and whether or not the taxes were properly prorated will not be reviewed since these issues will have to be reconsidered by the court.