times. See Watts, 426 So.2d at 1312. This adjudicatory process creates the possibility of numerous orders entered in sequence, each adjudicating with finality the injured workers’ entitlement to benefits — none of which, necessarily, signify the exhaustion of all judicial labors in the case as a whole (the general standard for determining the finality of an order in other types of cases, see Howard v. Ziegler, 40 So.2d 776, 777 (Fla.1949)). See Bradley, 652 So.2d at 444. This court, accounting for the sequential nature of the workers’ compensation adjudicatory process, has consistently held that a final workers’ compensation order is one that finally disposes of all claims that are procedurally ripe to be adjudicated. See Vazquez v. Truly Nolan of Am., 752 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>); Emro Mktg. v. Schwier, 670 So.2d 1141, 1142
holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear holding order nonfinal where parties agreed to reserva tion on issue ripe for adjudication and tried by parties holding that a federal court may refuse to exercise continuing jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it parties cannot confer jurisdiction by stipulation or consent holding case tried on stipulated facts where order indicated that the parties agreed during telephone hearing with the court that no material issue of fact existed holding that an issue cannot be tried by the parties consent pursuant to rule 15b2 where one of the parties opposes trial by moving for summary judgment