Yes, that's possible with these premises... and I guess now that I'm looking at it in that light, I see that it is impossible to have (¬V & ¬T), since the ¬T would trigger ¬H, which would be contradictory to the consequent of (¬V→H)... And since V has a consequent of T, there is only one possible truth value for T, if the premises are true.

The (¬T→¬H) acts as a contradiction for anything that could produce a False value for the conclusion...whew, that was cooking my brain there for a bit. Thanks for the hint!

I wonder if this valid form could have a sound instance?