We write to address a second point argued by Claimant in support of her petition — one that reveals a common misunderstanding of the required element of a departure from the essential requirements of law. Specifically, Claimant argues that the JCC departed from the essential requirements of law because, under the circumstances alleged as true by Claimant, the law requires that Claimant must prevail on the issue of medical necessity of the medical benefits claimed; i.e., her entitlement to benefits is essentially assured. However, at this time, neither this particular legal issue, nor any other potential defense thereto, has been tried or adjudicated by the lower tribunal. And, any subsequent adjudication of such issues will be subject to plenary review on appeal. In short, the undetermined and inchoate merits of the untried claim for medical benefits is irrelevant to the question of whether the JCC departed from the essential requirements of the law when she ordered Claimant to undergo an IME in the midst of an unresolved and still-litigated medical dispute.