I fell in Caesars Palace Forum Shops

You have not missed the statute of limitations for a slip and fall.  However you have also not included in your scenario the most important facts which are what the premise owner did negligently.  There is no strict liability for slips and falls.  Without knowing what you feel over or under what circumstances you fell, it is impossible to assess liability.  To prevail on a traditional negligence theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages." DeBoer v. Sr. Bridges of Sparks Fam. Hosp., 282 P.3d 727,732 (2012).  The Nevada Supreme Court has held that a landowner should anticipate, and is liable for failing to remedy, the risk of harm from obvious hazards when an invitee could be distracted from observing or avoiding the dangerous condition, or may forget what he or she has discovered, and the landowner has reason to expect that the invitee will nevertheless suffer physical harm. Where a foreign substance causing a slip and fall is made to be on the floor by the owner or one of its agents, then liability will lie, as a foreign substance on the floor is usually not consistent with the standard of ordinary care.  There are exceptions for ice and natural conditions which do routinely occur on the ground.  Traditionally, where a foreign substance causing a slip and fall results from “the actions of persons other than the business or its employees, liability will lie only if the business had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to remedy it.”