n which the claim for relief is based, whether they have been previously presented to any court and, if not, why not." (Emphasis supplied) As previously stated, the petition did not allege "why" the grounds were not previously presented. Counsel was appointed for the appellant and we must presume that if legal reasons existed for not previously presenting these questions to an appropriate court for review, these reasons would have been stated in the petition for post conviction relief or by appropriate amendment thereto. Since the appellant was aware of these alleged grounds, it is essential that he state why they were not presented on direct appeal. This issue is overruled.
Finally, the appellant contends that the court erred in its failure to state in its final order its findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each issue asserted as required by T.C.A. § 40-30-118(b). The appellant is correct in that the findings of fact and conclusions of law are not stated in the final order or by a separate written memorandum. However, the *291 trial court orally pronounced his findings from the bench rendering the error harmless.
It results that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
DUNCAN and CORNELIUS, JJ., concur.



686 S.E.2d 262 (2009)
BUTTS
v.
THOMAS.
No. A09A1046.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
September 22, 2009.
Reconsideration Denied October 28, 2009.
Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, Sean W. Martin, for appellant.
Davis & Melton, John W. Davis Jr., F. Gregory Melton, Dalton, for appellee.
ADAMS, Judge.
Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, Inc. brought suit in the name of its employee Bobby Wayne Butts to recover workers' compensation benefits paid pursuant to Tennessee law arising out of a car accident involving Butts and Janet Rosser Thomas that occurred in Catoosa County, Georgia. The Superior Court of Catoosa County granted Thomas's motion for summary judgment, in which Thomas argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitation. Coca-Cola appeals.
The complaint alleges that Bu