I would say

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 mins (2021-08-02 03:15:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

could be legal or otherwise...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 53 mins (2021-08-02 03:54:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

if legal, proceedings is more accurate...

There's a PDF document called "Guide to Judicial Policy". It explains:
"Disability is a temporary or permanent impairment, physical or mental, rendering a judge unable to discharge the duties of the particular judicial office. Examples of disabilities include substance abuse, the inability to stay awake during court proceedings, or impairment of cognitive abilities that renders the judge unable to function effectively."
Article (1), General Provisions states that there is a Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. "It has rules which govern proceedings under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, to determine whether a covered judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or is unable to discharge the duties of office because of mental and physical disability. There are illustrative rules , as well as rules which provide mandatory and nationally uniform provisions. ..."
"Rule 2(b) recognizes that unforeseen and exceptional circumstances may call for a different approach in particular cases.
3.Definitions
(1) (2) A complaint is information from any source other than a document described that gives a chief judge probable cause to believe that a covered judge, as defined in Rule 4, has engaged in misconduct, or may have a disability, whether or not the information is framed or is intended to be an allegation of misconduct or disability. It does not include an allegation that is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling. An allegation that calls into question the correctness of a judge's ruling, including a failure to recuse, without more, is merits related. If the decision or the ruling is alleged to be the result of an improper motive, such as a bribe, ex-party contact, racial or ethnic bias, or improper conduct rendering a decision or ruling, such as personally derogatory remarks which are irrelevant to the issues, the complaint is not cognizable to the extent that it attacks the merits."
Definition: "A recuse challenges a judge, prosecutor or juror as unqualified to perform legal duties because of a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality."

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2021-08-02 06:34:23 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/recuse

Two answers we have so far are at variance - one says "eligibility for benefits" the other "determining disabilities"

My take is that both of these issues and others (e.g. assessing damages when a person has been seriously injured) are indeed dealt with by the courts

The text is simpy referring to a person's doctor without any reference to the precise type of proceedings involved

Solution: Go for a generic term

Kiet Bach is right about the definition of words to lay out a frame to thinkin order to understand. I want to elucidate upon the usage of this term and the contextual meanings please.

Paying disability allowance/ benefits is not an issue, the issue lies in hiring legal professionals for deciding it before the court, which takes a lot of money as compared to the amount of allowances that can be paid to deserving. Now this is a slight change in the system, before which the authority to decide anyone's disability rested with your own physician. (We are being pushed to stay silent)