Recent decisions having application to newly discovered evidence set forth that such evidence must not be cumulative or merely impeaching in character but must be of a character that likely would have produced a different result had the evidence been procurable at the first, hearing, and it must be shown that the evidence was not known to the party at the time of the original hearing, and by reasonable diligence this new evidence could not have been secured at that time. See Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Nix, 141 Ga. App. 342 (1) ( 233 S.E.2d 468); Dennington v. Rockdale Package Stores, 161 Ga. App. 450 ( 288 S.E.2d 709); Sewell Plastics, Inc. v. Skelton, 163 Ga. App. 163 ( 293 S.E.2d 555). It can be argued here that this is the first opportunity for a hearing, but the recent changes in the workers' compensation law do not require a hearing for the beginning of payments but require the employer/insurer to begin payments immediately unless controverted without an award under Code Ann. § 114-705, supra; and a notice to controvert must be filed with the board within 60 days of the due date of the first payment of compensation "except upon the grounds of changes in condition or newly discovered evidence." The insurer is the alter ego of the employer and what the employer knows the insurer knows as a matter of law.