err...

can I sue her for making me less "whole" after reading that article? I could seriously feel my brain cells committing suicide trying to understand some of that letter.

Lady- Step 1: Get a Lawyer (and not one of those 1-800 ones you see on tv)

People that shop at walmart can use the internet?

Who knew?

@discounteggroll:

One of the 1-800 schmucks would probably be in her best interest.

Obviously you are fairly new to this site or you'd know people rip on just about every victim around here so don't feel bad.

And it's CHEAP not cheep. Baby chicks CHEEP.

Sorry, it's not Walmart's responsibility to pay for your treatment when you have an allergic reaction. It's sad when something like this happens, but sometimes it's just your body being messed up (imagine you had MS, or Parkinson's! You are lucky you just have an allergy!).

It sucks not to have insurance -- instead of using your energy going after Walmart, why don't you lobby your representative and senators for better health care for poor people? That way, the next time an uninsured person has an allergic reaction, they can get the help you couldn't afford.

you guys are mean.

@cashmerewhore:
Once they started selling computers it was bound to happen!

You know, this is a site for consumer issues, not a body critique. I highly doubt everyone commenting is a foot model.

This woman bought a pair of sandals that I doubt anyone would reasonably assume would cause chemical burns. At first she said her feet tingled and she assumed it was just from wearing the sandals after a long winter, A reasonable assumption. However, once she deduced it was the sandals she stopped wearing them. That doesn't mean the damage stopped then. Chemical burns can take days to finish erupting, just like you don't get a blister the instant you burn your finger on a hot pan. I have no doubt she stopped wearing the shoes days before it got to the point you see in the photo. Chem burns are brutal.

And regardless of that fact, if she had continues to wear them, does that really get Walmart off the hook for selling shoes that scar your feet?

Kerry, no need to defend yourself. Some people on this site can be very rude and heartless but not the majority. Hell, a few of them sided against the poor woman who had diarrhea in her pants and the store wouldn't let her use their bathroom. I saw the pictures and it looked really bad and painful. Hopefully they will pull those things off the shelves and you'll be taken care of without the need for a bunch of lawyers and courts. Are you still in pain? Scarring bad?

I like how there was is supposedly an "audition" period on this site to make sure that only commenters who can provide constructive or witty additions to an article are allowed. I didn't realize that the audition period was to weed out people who don't argue via the usage of sweeping generalizations and ad hominem attacks.

@Kimisama.

If it is/was an allergic reaction, after seeing how bad her feet were damaged don't you think there should be a HUGE warning label attached to every pair of those flip flops? I'm not normally an advocate of some of those ridiculous warning labels, but this one looks to be pretty damn important. I sure as hell wouldn't buy a pair of $3 sandals if I knew there was even the POTENTIAL for burns like she got. And WalMart is still happily selling these sandals knowing this...

Just another example of the benefits of universal healthcare. This situation would be nipped in the bud and all she would have to fight for is a refund, and perhaps a recall. But no, she's gonna' have to go through a lengthy court battle if she wants justice.

@Hawkeye1659: What sort of warning label?

"WARNING: BUYING CHEAP CHINESE GOODS MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH"?

I think everyone is being a little too mean with all of this. Maybe it's an allergic reaction or maybe it's a chemical burn. I think it's safe to say that most of us are not doctors and can't determine what it is or isn't over the interwebs. If she went to see a doctor and he said this was a chemical burn and not an allergic reaction, then that's good enough for me. I love all these people going "It's probably an allergic reaction because just because you weren't allergic to it before doesn't mean you aren't now." I think the submitter knows her body pretty well.
As for making fun of her feet? That's just childish. I'd love to see everyone who made fun of her feet post pictures of theirs. In my opinion, everyone's feet are gross, including mine. I saw nothing out of the ordinary with her feet, aside from the flip-flop shaped wound.
And I just love love love the people making fun of her for shopping at Wal-Mart. Lets face it, we all have at some point, whether it was a one time trip or a weekly trip. Sometimes that's really all there is in some areas. I didn't know people who had their heads so far up their asses were capable of using the internet. I'm looking at you, CashmereWhore.
And really, is anyone going to buy those flip-flops now? Probably not.
It'd be great it everyone stopped acting like douche monkeys now, but I highly doubt that's going to happen.
Flame on, people. Flame on.

And Subby, I hope your feets feel better.

@Hawkeye1659:

No. If you are one person out of 10000000 that are allergic to that particular type of latex, then there is no reason for a warning label. Otherwise, there'd be warning labels on everything that would take up most of the packaging.

Personally, I think that if Walmart has not had any other complaints and it has not been demonstrated that the injuries are actually burns, then it's probably just a freak allergy. Nobody is really at fault.

However, I'd agree that having been shown the images, I'd temporarily halt the sales of those shoes until it was shown what caused the injury.

@Hawkeye1659: I get that sort of rash from eating mangoes. On my FACE. Should there be a HUGE warning label on mangoes? How about strawberries? One of my friends goes into anaphylactic shock after eating just one. Or how about shrimp? Or wheat? Soap? Shampoo? (P.S. I'm also allergic to many kinds of shampoo, if I get a rash, I just have to go to the doctor, get some Aclovate, and deal with it). Truly caustic chemicals have warning labels, things that normal people aren't sensitive to don't.

Seriously, it's upsetting and annoying, and possibly life-threatening, to have an allergy, but we can't put labels on everything anyone could be allergic to. You just have to be careful about what you buy. Personal responsibility ftw.

@bonzombiekitty: D'oh, you beat me.

Great name, btw.

I know she said she's talked to one other person who had this problem, but people have to realize that allergies can pop up at any time, and to almost any thing.

I think if there was something specific in the plastic that was causing widespread burns to many customers, even Wal Mart would wake up a little.

The fact that they're dismissing this implies that her situation is a rare one, and there's a good chance that this could have happened with another pair from another manufacturer and store.

People think just because they've worn or used something tons of times means they'll never develop an allergy to it. Actually, it can be quite the contrary.

People's body chemistries change over time, sometimes suddenly - and people can develop sudden and bizarre reactions to things that wouldn't do a thing to 99% of folks.

I myself developed an allergy to propylene glycol when I was in college - something that's in almost every consumer cosmetic and hygiene product. It happened suddenly, came out of nowhere, and was with products I had used for years.

I'm not saying her story isn't horrible - it is. I'm also not saying the flip flops didn't cause her problem; I'm sure they did. However, to imply that they are somehow 'dangerous' to most people and that they should be recalled or issued a warning label is naive.

If she could get a lab to somehow prove that there's a caustic chemical or irritant in the straps, there might be a cause here for further action. However, if they've only received one or two reports out of doubtless thousands sold, the onus is really on her. It's not "victim blaming" and it's not "mean", it's just the fact that 1 person out of 1000 may be allergic to *anything*, and you can't expect a company to make a special case for every product with that in mind.

@kimsama: There's a huge difference between a chemical burn and an allergic reaction. An allergic reaction would've spread out like a nasty rash. Seeing the pictures, as gruesome as they are, the redness never moves. It's concentrated in the same area, so it would be some sort of caustic residue left on the sandals.

Though she did rinse them with water, baking soda would've been better as it would've neutralized whatever was on there.

My local Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robins has several warning signs now.

Ice Cream may nuts in it.
...may come in contact with eggs, wheat, nuts
There is milk in the scrambled eggs.
Cashier cannot count.
We will not accept 'dirty' money. (but this does not stop the cashier from licking her fingers to count out the ones!)
Watch for cars in lot.
No outside food.

Which does lead me to one big Q about DD...why is coffee more expensive when ice is added?

Kerry, grow some thick skin. Most of the guys here who write trollish comments are just sad, sad individuals.

I'm surprised that Consumerist allows such comments... isn't that why there's supposed to be a probationary period for newly registered users to only allow the considerate (does not mean that you cannot be occasionally harsh), wise, and/or witty to comment?

Why don't people get booted from commenting for being so blatantly anti-consumer?

they're just dickish trolls, the site would be better without them.

fundamentally, if you're a person who's opinion of McDonalds coffee lady is "dumb bitch, coffee is hot," then go somewhere else.

(hint: she needed skin grafts)

This is beyond "personal responsibility" if you think people should be thinking about getting burns like she got when buying something as simple and benign as flip flops. And when was it determined that this is an allergy anyways and not some sort of chemical burn or something else entirely? If I eat some strange food and turns out I'm allergic to it, go ahead and chalk that up to personal responsibility and I'll accept that. But it is not reasonable for me to think that buying a plastic frisbee could cause severe burns to my hands.

And to the 1 in 100000 comment, who's to say this hasn't happened to a bunch of other people. She already got a letter from someone else who this happened to. Again though it hasn't been determined to be an allergy anyways so that is presumptuous until we know for sure. Many other companies make flip flops that don't cause severe burning like that. Why can't this one?

@tcp100: Wow, propylene glycol? Me too! That's exactly why I'm allergic to tons of shampoos. I feel for ya. It's hard to avoid, isn't it?

The popular opinion on the last thread was that it's contact dermatitis. Her response doesn't really address this.

Wal-Mart should tell her to pound sand (unless she has proof that the product is defective). They owe her nothing.

@Optimistic Prime: Sorry, I have contact dermatitis to many things, and that's just not the case. The only skin that's affected is that which came into contact with the allergen. I have never heard of an allergic rash "spreading," except in the case of a systemic allergic reaction, or possibly autoeczematization.

Sometimes when I read the really virulent anti-consumer comments, I wonder if they're actually posted by:
a. PR flacks or other employees of the companies in question
b. Just plain trolls (the same people who seek out fan sites for games or movies just to trash on the same games or movies and get a rise out of the actual fans)

I think there's a way to make constructive criticism of what went down in this or any story, or make suggestions to others who may encounter a similar situation. Blatantly trashing, blaming, or making fun of the original victim is unnecessary.

@Kimsama: So when you buy shampoo you look on the back ingredients label for propylene glycol right? There's no warning label per say on shampoo but you know that it's there and can stay away from it. Wouldn't it suck for you if there were no ingredient labels on any shampoos? How would this woman have been able to avoid these severe burns if it is in fact an allergy? She couldn't have.

@jitrobug: Because no consumer-oriented site will ever make any headway if they're always completely reactionary and don't weigh reality in with what's going on. I'm not talking about THIS story, but there have been plenty of stories on the consumerist where the consumer was NOT right, and just stringing up companies because they're "the man" and part of some "evil conspiracy empire" will get a consumerist movement absolutely nowhere.

Listen, there's no excuse to be virulent and rude and make comments about people not being able to use the internet, etc. However, if anyone expects companies to respect what the consumerist has to say, what's said has to be reasonable and metered. A 'string 'em up, hang 'em!' attitude that implies NO personal responsibility is required in being a consumer will get everyone absolutely nowhere.

@kimsama: It is VERY hard to avoid. It's in absolutely everything, even some food products!

Can I just say that allergic reactions tend to occur pretty quickly. The development of this wound does truly look like a chemical burn - a slow development from a 1st to 3rd degree burn - how many allergic reactions take 12 days to fully develop and continue to develop after halting exposure to the source?
Considering the way that Walmart appears to have passed the buck on this particular complaint, who is to know how many incidents like this occurred? How many people would have had less severe reactions and just assumed as Kerry did that it was from wearing flip flops for the first time that year?
For the sake of consumer safety Walmart should have halted the sale of these products as a precaution. Thats just common sense.

@rocnrule:

Yeah, that would have fixed it... So 2 or 3 months later, once she had finally waited her turn to see a doctor and her burn was long finished developing, the doctor would have told her, here's some off-brand aloe...It might help.

@Hawkeye1659: I don't believe that isolated allergic reactions should necessitate a warning label, no. I hope that if this is a problem that the article helped someone, but I doubt this will be a problem for your average person who lacks an overactive immune system, and the majority of others as well.

@Hawkeye1659: Yes, unless say I'm at a hotel, in which case those little shampoo bottles don't have labels. I check when I can, and if I have a reaction because I couldn't check, I go to the dermatologist. I don't expect to be able to avoid such a ubiquitous product 100% (latex is pretty ubiquitous too), but I'm not blaming the hotels for not "making me whole" if I get a rash. ^_^ I don't think anyone wants to live in a nanny state, right? Sometimes bad things happen because you are unlucky enough to be allergic to something. C'est la vie. If this were a product liability issue, believe me, I'd be foaming at the mouth, but as someone with plenty of contact dermatitis experience, I guess I can only say "Welcome to the club, Kerry. Here's your complementary steroid cream."

I hope she can get insurance soon. That's a scary way to live (as I recall from my post-college days).

@Hawkeye1659: Actually, hawkeye, It's not listed on everything. I've had to take the attitude to avoid things if I don't know what's in it. Also, it doesn't do it every time - so it's hit or miss and a very strange reaction. I've gotten reactions to hand soap in restaurant bathrooms - even though 99 times out of 100 nothing will happen.

My doc even suggested that it may not be an allergy that affects me -all- the time; it could be seasonal, related to different things (I.E. what I eat, temperature, immune responses.)

You'd be surprised how little doctors actually know about allergies, what causes them, and why they come and go. I for one have no allergies to anything else, really - even poison ivy doesn't affect me that much. Strange.

Good point jitrobug. The rudeness and personal comments is what is really gets to me. It ends up degrading any rational arguments that can and have been raised by people. This woman was in a lot of pain and from reading the site with pictures and timeline I didn't get the feeling she is some litigious person looking to cash in, but someone in a lot of pain and wanting to avoid others experiencing the same thing. It's good she is making people aware of this IMO and it's not justified her getting crapped on for doing so.

@Groovymarlin: We're not adverse to corporate criticism, just a basic miniscule amount of research before people start scaremongering.

The easy-availability of commenter accounts has definitely had a negative impact on the overall quality. I would like to point out that I expressed concern about this at Lifehacker nearly a year ago.

@tcp100:

Yeah - I confused the two.. booting people for disagreeing in an intelligent way would kill the site - it's the increase in mindless nastiness that I think they ought to deal with.

@tcp100: Oh no, like what? Argh, I'm glad I'm going mostly with "whole" foods these days...

I love the fact that anyone who critiques the complainer is a troll. There was no need to attack her feet, but I definately see why she would come off as someone who is out to "get" walmart. We have all seen too many people try to sue for injuries either they should have been able to prevent, or that are just natural life occurances. If this is in fact an alergy (also my guess since a chemical burn would lead me to believe that there would be major stories on an outbreak, then she needs to deal with that issue and move on. By posting these stories on the net people are going to naturally assume you are out to get something.

As for the walmart bashers, so people prefer to shop there for a lot of reasons, doesnt make them all illiterate rednecks as Ive seen them called. I developed a love for walmart back in college and his the store for most of my health and beauty type products due to selection and cost. It doesnt make me a moron or poor, just makes me a smart consumer. Dont attack people just for shopping there. Its just bias (very blue state).

Unless you've walked a mile in her shoes (haha - flip flops), maybe it's nicer not to judge.....

Bottom line - I think anyone would be pretty pissed if that happened to them, allergic reaction or chemicals aside.....

How is Wal-mart supposed to make her whole?

She addresses nothing other than why she wore them, that she rinsed them with water, and that she didn't want anyone else to get hurt by them. She also wants to be made whole (wtf does that mean). Okay, so let's address this.

Once again, you are allergic to something. That sucks, there's no denying it. Because you have no medical insurance you're situation was made worse due to delays in treatment. That sucks, but what can I say, get insurance, I am sure the cost would have outweighed worrying about permanent scars on your feet. Can't afford it? Why should Wal-mart have to pay for it.

No one else to get hurt. You, a single person, with a claim that someone else had a problem, has had a problem out of millions of these shoes sold out Wal-mart stores around the country. You, singular. My local news will run a story if two people ALMOST get hit by a car at an intersection because they are that hard up for news. I'm thinking this might have made it a little farther up the chain.

You want to be made whole... still, what you are saying (I am interpreting here) is that you want Wal-mart to compensate you for an unfortunate allergic reaction. They should pay your medical bills because you did not have insurance? If your foot had slipped out of the flip flop while walking causing you to fall and break your hip would you be looking to Wal-mart for compensation? Because there's probably a greater chance of that happening to someone than having this kind of reaction. You have no insurance, you have to pay for ANYTHING that might have happened to you that required medical attention.

For those sympathizing with the "labelled" aspect of this. What should the company put on it? Caution: Contains plastic and foam, your feet might suddenly swell up and blister if you cannot obtain immediate medical treatment. Christ, it's attitudes like that which increase the instruction manual for my stereo receiver to 3 pages of warnings and 1 page of connection instructions. "Caution: Do not install in bathtub, might cause severe injury or death." Duh.

Finally... I don't care what your feet look like.

Oh, hey -- and Kerry, I got horrible marks on my legs after having an allergic reaction to being bitten by midges (yes, I'm also allergic to biting insects), and they scarred, but went away after about 2 years. Cocoa butter or shea butter helps. Also, the steroid cream can cause your skin to thin a little (making it more susceptible to stretch marks, etc), so only use it as your doctor ordered you to.

I have had a problem with items this pink color, both plastic and fabric. I got a similar "burn" from a pair of flip-flops purchased at the Gap and experienced burning and itching of my feet from a pair of Keds tennis shoes this color, but stopped wearing the items. Strange, I never thought that I needed to sue someone. Sometimes stuff just happens, and you change your behavior to keep it from happening again.

Why do you have to go after some entity because you encountered a problem? I think I should be glad that I don't understand this mentality.

"make her whole"?! Jesus stop watching soap operas...

@Optimistic Prime: "Though she did rinse them with water, baking soda would've been better as it would've neutralized whatever was on there."

Unless it's a burn from a base. You can get chemical burns from an acid or a base or solvents or oxidizers. If you don't know what is burning you I wouldn't going around guessing what to throw on it in order to make it better. Dumb idea.

could it be the influx of percieved trolls has a little something to do with our good ole' friend 'teh chinese poison train'. how about the increasing number of posts in the vein of 'i bought some piece of crap @ walmart (slash big box store), something went wrong, & now i want to complain'. more poison dog food & nazi tshirt stories equals more walmart trolls. while i love reading the consumerist, perhaps these types of stories are better suited for the local news.

the general vibe around consumerist has always seemed to be 'big box sucks'. while i feel everyone around these parts is always looking for a good deal, there is still a gap between 'good deal' and 'bad choice'. i am sure there will always be a 'walmart' dividing line in the sand. however, i think the consumerist staff should help enforce a more pro-active 'caveat emptor' stance across the board (re: walmart or otherwise).

and fwiw, i was more grossed out by the giant sores than the actual feet. not really the 1st thing i wanted to see this morning in my RSS reader. can we get that kind of stuff behind a 'might make you puke' cut from now on?!