for the employer/carrier to make alterations to the claimant’s home to accommodate a wheelchair); Navarro v. Sugarcane Growers Coop. & Prof'l Adm’rs, Inc., 661 So.2d 946, 946-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (reversing the dismissal of a petition for rule nisi that sought enforcement of an order authorizing treatment from a licensed massage therapist and a physician). On the other hand, orders providing for IMEs, as in Fonken and De La Pena, are nonfinal and cannot be enforced in rule nisi proceedings. IMEs are utilized when additional medical evidence is needed to determine whether claimants are entitled to benefits. Thus, an order providing for an IME would clearly not settle the claim that was being adjudicated. See, e.g., Kimmins Corp. v. Collier, 664 So.2d 299, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the parties acknowledged
holding order was nonfinal where order reserved jurisdiction to determine integrallyrelated visitation and child support issues holding that an order that determines only the right to attorneys fees without setting the amount is a nonappealable nonfinal order holding that an order requiring an employercarrier to provide an ime is a nonfinal order for purposes of invoking appellate jurisdiction holding a motion for rehearing from an appealable nonfinal order is not authorized and thus does not toll the time for filing an appeal holding that an appellate court may not exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review a nonfinal district court order where the merits of the nonfinal order are not inextricably intertwined with the properly appealed collateral order or where review of the former is not necessary to ensure meaningful review of the latter